The predominant factor in black deaths by police is more crimes commited - not racism

[Mumbles]

I can only ask one question, and forgive me if you already answered this one:

What, exactly, is the non-racist thinking behind me being slammed into a wall at age 12 by a cop while committing no wrong, because some other person who happens to have my skin color happened to commit a violent crime?

Maybe you looked much older than 12?

Nah, I was pretty tiny back then...although it's entirely possible that the cop saw me as older than I was...

 

[Axulus]

Blacks commit far more violent crimes. They make up 13% of the population, but committed 52% of the homicides from 1980-2008. 38.5% of arrests for violent crime in general (rape, murder, robbery, manslaughter) were black, about 3 times their population proportion. Remember this proportion, it will be important for later.

Are the greater numbers of arrests due to racism? Generally no, as concluded by academic studies. The reason? Arrest rates match pretty closely to victimization surveys, suggesting that racism is only a tiny factor, if a factor at all. There is no good evidence here that racism is anything close to significant.

See the full analysis of the data here:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime/19439

Now, how many more blacks die at the hands of police? About 3 per million individuals per year for blacks and 1 per million per year for whites, a 3 to 1 rate compared to whites. Now remember that violence crime arrest ratio? Matches almost exactly.

Data for deaths at hands of police by race here:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-killed-police/19423

I can only ask one question, and forgive me if you already answered this one:

What, exactly, is the non-racist thinking behind me being slammed into a wall at age 12 by a cop while committing no wrong, because some other person who happens to have my skin color happened to commit a violent crime?

Do you have comprehensive data to demonstrate widespread racism across the country with the police force in these incidents? Also note I focused on two narrow claims - arrests for violent crimes, and deaths at the hands of the police - the racism doesn't appear to show up in the data in these two areas, at least it has not been demonstrated as such. This does not mean there are some individual acts of racism by the police force. I don't deny that. Just that there are so few that they aren't readily apparent in the data when you compare incidents against blacks vs. whites when you control for all relevant factors: SES, crime rates, arrests, number of interactions with police, etc. Also, do you seriously think the police never rough up or use excessive force against whites? Once again, you need to demonstrate in the data to show society that this is a problem that needs to be taken seriously. Then and only then can we start working on solutions. Without the data, there is absolutely no way to tell if any recommendation is actually working and, if it is, how well it is working.

 

[barbos]

Maybe you looked much older than 12?

Nah, I was pretty tiny back then...although it's entirely possible that the cop saw me as older than I was...

Well, you answered your own question.
I remember black 14 year old "policeman" in Chicago. It took a week or something before real policemen realized that the dude they were driving around was not a man but a 14 year old kid.

 

[arkirk]

Your history revisionism is transparent - the South was far poorer than the north, one of the reasons they lost the civil war from the far more productive and prosperous slave free north.

Half right. The North was more productive because they had diversified their manufacturing base and moved away from agriculture as their primary source of income. The southern states' primary cash products were cotton, tobacco and food products for which domestic demand wasn't actually all that high, and most of their income and consumption came from trade with northern states and international export of their products to other countries.

Going to war with the North actually cut off their primary source of industrial goods, and the Union Blockade cut them off from their trade partners abroad. Despite this, the Confederacy was actually able to compete with the Union industrially for much of the war until Union generals adopted the then-unprecedented tactic of "total war," deliberately targeting the Confederacy's industrial base with the intention of destroying its capacity to fight.

There's also the oft-ignored fact that the South retained some of the most brilliant and creative engineers in the Union at the time, hence its development of the CSS Virginia -- the world's first ironclad warship- and H.L. Hunley, the first submarine in history to sink an enemy warship.

The south didn't loose the war because they were poor. They lost the war because the Union beat the shit out of them.

Just a thought, not backed up by hard evidence, though I think that could be forthcoming. The Civil War cut off the south from its primary trading partner...the North. The northeast had quite a textile industry that used cotton...oh my can we forget this? President Lincoln wrote his emancipation proclamation in a house built by slave labor. I think we need to be a little more careful with all these black and white distinctions. I do agree with Crazy Eddie on one thing...why the South lost the war. It was because the North beat the shit out of them. Funny though a century and a half later they have refilled on shit.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No. Kindergarten programs have more female teachers because most of the graduates in early childhood education are female.

I know this is true here in the states. In general men are less interested in a career in elementary education and get preferential treatment. If you are a minority male, you are extra golden.

 

[ksen]

the racism doesn't appear to show up in the data in these two areas, at least it has not been demonstrated as such.

You mean it doesn't show up in the self-reported data from 6% of the local police agencies that are interested in not looking like racist thugs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Indeed.

Then I presume it wouldn't be difficult to produce a citation or source to such consensus? For example, try taking a look at the Wikipedia article to learn the background on the debate, which has this quote:

While several environmental factors have been shown to affect group differences in intelligence, it has not been demonstrated that they can explain the entire disparity. But on the other hand, no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test scores. Recent summaries of the debate call for more research into the topic to determine the relative contributions of environmental and genetic factors in explaining the apparent IQ disparity among racial groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Doesn't sound like much of a consensus to me. Which is exactly why I've said I don't completely dismiss the idea that there is such a difference. I'm waiting for the evidence to come down strongly on one side or the other, as all rational and freethinking people should do.

Well, eugenics hasn't had much in the way of breakthroughs in the past century or so. Meanwhile, from your link... and within the specific text your quoted, "no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test scores". So a century plus of research and nothing yet. Some may consider that debunked.

 

[Davka]

Then I presume it wouldn't be difficult to produce a citation or source to such consensus? For example, try taking a look at the Wikipedia article to learn the background on the debate, which has this quote:

While several environmental factors have been shown to affect group differences in intelligence, it has not been demonstrated that they can explain the entire disparity. But on the other hand, no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test scores. Recent summaries of the debate call for more research into the topic to determine the relative contributions of environmental and genetic factors in explaining the apparent IQ disparity among racial groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Doesn't sound like much of a consensus to me. Which is exactly why I've said I don't completely dismiss the idea that there is such a difference. I'm waiting for the evidence to come down strongly on one side or the other, as all rational and freethinking people should do.

Well, eugenics hasn't had much in the way of breakthroughs in the past century or so. Meanwhile, from your link... and within the specific text your quoted, "no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test scores". So a century plus of research and nothing yet. Some may consider that debunked.

Add to this those causal relationships which have been found: Blacks and women do worse on IQ tests if they are told beforehand that the test measures intelligence. They also do worse if reminded beforehand that they are black or female, which can be done as simply as having someone check off a few boxes. When black and female test-takers are told that the test has nothing to do with intelligence, and given confidence-boosting affirmation beforehand, the difference in IQ scores effectively disappears.

People internalize messages when they are repeated over and over. Shutting down the internal "you are inferior" voice does wonders for one's test-taking abilities.

 

[laughing dog]

What you are missing is that what she's reporting it what they are bound to say no matter what the reality is. Taking their word for it is akin to taking the suspect's word that he's not guilty.

Apparently you don't realize how fucking ridiculous it looks when you claim that they must be lying because they are saying something you don't believe, because you respond with fucking ridiculous analogy. What makes this even more fucking ridiculous is your long documented history of accepting the word of any killer of a nonwhite person without question.

 

[laughing dog]

Please provide a quote of mine to that effect.

I'm asking you to weigh in, hence the questions.

Slavery permitted the Southern elite to perpetuate their power and wealth. It permitted low cost agricultural production of staples and cotton, which helped some of the Northern industrialists. Did it "power" the US economy? Not in that sense, but it helped it along.

 

[laughing dog]

You're claiming that race can be a relevant factor to use in selection. I'm asking for an example.

Does an anaesthesiologist's race have a bearing on how good an anaesthesiologist she is?

It might, depending on her patients and the people with whom she works,

That's why I listed more than one.

All along the same vein, so still pretty one-dimensional. But even without that observation, how does one objectively use any combination of those to come up with a objective measure?

It's nothing of the kind. You can't get into higher degrees without the proven academic aptitude to handle it. Or do you believe anyone has the aptitude and interest in completing a PhD, and the rest of the people are just tired of being income-poor?

I think you over-estimate the level of academic aptitude to handle it. I know many people who left their PhD program because of the persistent low standard of living not because they did not have the proven academic aptitude or the skills.

The individuals in those communities who want and expect that are immoral, racist idiots.

It is easy to demonize communities. Take Ferguson, Mo for example. The police force of Ferguson is overwhelming white (over 90% of the officers are white) while the population of Ferguson is about 2/3 black. Is it racist for the citizens of Ferguson to view the police force that radically differs from them (and who mostly do not reside in Ferguson) with suspicion?

So, people know affirmative action is unfair, but they don't care.

Some might. Some might share your view that it is unfair.

 

[Davka]

I'm asking you to weigh in, hence the questions.

Slavery permitted the Southern elite to perpetuate their power and wealth. It permitted low cost agricultural production of staples and cotton, which helped some of the Northern industrialists. Did it "power" the US economy? Not in that sense, but it helped it along.

It powered the economy of the Americas long before the USA was formed. It was only when the industrial revolution brought in an alternative to slavery (machinery) that slavery stopped being economically feasible.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There was more to slavery than economic viability. Which is why Jim Crow and Sharecropping replaced it.

Read the editorials in the southern papers during the years leading up to and during the CW. They don't talk about money. they talk about a way of life that needed to be protected

 

[ronburgundy]

That is true for truly randomly selected samples from the same population. Unfortunately for your argument that is not true here. These police are not homogenous throughout the USA so these samples do not come from the same population nor are they necessarily random.

The non-random factors are equally likely to bias in favor of an inflated difference as a underestimated difference. For example, small agencies that deal with little violence and arrests and thus only have a shooting every couple years are less likely to report. IF those agencies deal mostly with whites and the people shot are white, then whites are being more undercounted. Thus, since the random errors in small samples produce inflated estimates of group differences, it is still more probable that the given 3:1 ratio is inflated than that it is an underestimate.

Also, I bolded the 4 distinct different arguments related to the methodologies precisely so you wouldn't "accidentally" overlook the others and respond to only one of them and think you've defended your dismissal of the most valid evidence available related to rates of shootings by cops. Yet, you still managed to ignore 3 of the 4 points, and only offer an invalid argument against one.
What about convergence in the findings with the results of other data collection methods between the CDC, FBI, and BJS? What about the fact that a much higher % of the actual relevant agencies that would plausibly have shooting deaths during arrests are included in the report, because very few agencies categorized as "law enforcement" are relevant? What about the fact that even if the ratio is 8:1 it would still be completely in line with cops responding to deadly threats, because that is the ratio of the most serious violent crime rates (e.g., homicide) between blacks and whites?

In addition, there is the data I posted in another thread showing that blacks are many many times more likely to shoot at cops, and in fact, the ration of how often blacks are shot relative to how often they shoot at cops is lower than that same ratio for whites. IOW, if you shoot at the cops, you are much more likely to be shot and killed by the cops if you are white than if you are black.

That must explain the recent shootings of unarmed black men as well.

Once again you show total ignorance in statistical understanding and the difference between explaining aggregate trends vs. individual cases. Your argument is identical to that of the anti-science climate change deniers why blindly dismiss the evidence of human impact of climate change by saying "Gee, that must explain why this was the coldest winter in a century in my town."
The cause of differences in aggregated rates need not have anything at all to do with causes of individual shootings. It is logical fallacy to treat them as the same. One could be do to racism and the other not, or both could have nothing to do with racism but the causal factors are distinct. They are completely different kinds of questions. The question for the aggregate data is why are blacks more likely to be shot than whites? The question regarding an individual is why were they personally shot? Unarmed white people are shot also, so the same question must be asked about them too. Unless you are going to say that both unarmed blacks and unarmed whites are shot due to racism, then you are compelled (assuming you care about being reasonable), to recognize that many of the unarmed blacks that are shot are shot for similar reasons as unarmed whites are shot. Thus, unless you have evidence of racism specific to that individual case, you don't have evidence that the shooting would not have occurred if the person were white. The only thing you can do is try to point to aggregate stats as evidence of racism and thus evidence of racism in that specific case. Besides being logically fallacious, it requires that the aggregate stats show something different than would be expected in the absence of racism. They do not. That is what this thread is about. That is what explaining the aggregate stats is about.

There is no evidence that blacks are shot at rates higher rates than are predicted in the absence of the cops being racist. Differential rates of shootings are NOT evidence of this. They are only evidence if the difference in rates is not predicted by the non-racist factors that ought to impact shootings by cops doing their job. If anything, the evidence of actual rates that is available shows blacks are shot less often than expected, given the even larger difference in rates of violent crime, gun possession, and shooting at the cops.

 

[ksen]

If anything, the evidence of actual rates that is available shows blacks are shot less often than expected, given the even larger difference in rates of violent crime, gun possession, and shooting at the cops.

You mean the self-selected information available from 6% of local police departments.

 

[maxparrish]

the racism doesn't appear to show up in the data in these two areas, at least it has not been demonstrated as such.

You mean it doesn't show up in the self-reported data from 6% of the local police agencies that are interested in not looking like racist thugs.

Except those agencies cover most of the population:

In 2007, law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented more than 285 million United States inhabitants—94.6 percent of the total population.

Looks like whoever does not participate must be nit-picking small irrelevances.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/ucr_faqs

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You mean it doesn't show up in the self-reported data from 6% of the local police agencies that are interested in not looking like racist thugs.

Except those agencies cover most of the population:

In 2007, law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented more than 285 million United States inhabitants—94.6 percent of the total population.

Looks like whoever does not participate must be nit-picking small irrelevances.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/ucr_faqs

What exactly do you expect the FBI to say about the FBI's data?

 

[ksen]

You mean it doesn't show up in the self-reported data from 6% of the local police agencies that are interested in not looking like racist thugs.

Except those agencies cover most of the population:

In 2007, law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented more than 285 million United States inhabitants—94.6 percent of the total population.

Looks like whoever does not participate must be nit-picking small irrelevances.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/ucr_faqs

Here's what the UCR tracks:

The UCR Program collects offense information for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. These are Part I offenses and are serious crimes by nature and/or volume. Not all crimes, such as embezzlement, are readily brought to the attention of the police. Also, some serious crimes, such as kidnapping, occur infrequently. Therefore, the UCR Program limits the reporting of offenses known to the eight selected crime classifications because they are the crimes most likely to be reported and most likely to occur with sufficient frequency to provide an adequate basis for comparison.

This caveat is also specifically spelled out and bolded on the UCR page you linked (I underlined and italicized what I thought were other important parts):

Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment. “Variables Affecting Crime” in Crime in the United States has more information on this topic.

And yet people wanting to blame black people for the amount of police violence visited upon them freely use this incomplete analysis to blame an entire demographic of people.

 

[laughing dog]

The non-random factors are equally likely to bias in favor of an inflated difference as a underestimated difference. For example, small agencies that deal with little violence and arrests and thus only have a shooting every couple years are less likely to report. IF those agencies deal mostly with whites and the people shot are white, then whites are being more undercounted. Thus, since the random errors in small samples produce inflated estimates of group differences, it is still more probable that the given 3:1 ratio is inflated than that it is an underestimate.

What if those agencies don't most likely deal with white deaths? Anyone can make up a story to justify their bias. The point is that those statistics are not necessarily "random" in the statistical sense of the word.

Also, I bolded the 4 distinct different arguments related to the methodologies precisely so you wouldn't "accidentally" overlook the others and respond to only one of them and think you've defended your dismissal of the most valid evidence available related to rates of shootings by cops. Yet, you still managed to ignore 3 of the 4 points, and only offer an invalid argument against one.

You are mistaken if you believe people are required to either read every word of your posts or to respond to them. I can understand you believe you made a valid argument, but you didn't.

What about convergence in the findings with the results of other data collection methods between the CDC, FBI, and BJS? What about the fact that a much higher % of the actual relevant agencies that would plausibly have shooting deaths during arrests are included in the report, because very few agencies categorized as "law enforcement" are relevant? What about the fact that even if the ratio is 8:1 it would still be completely in line with cops responding to deadly threats, because that is the ratio of the most serious violent crime rates (e.g., homicide) between blacks and whites?

What about the fact that we have no idea if the police in those reporting agencies use the same criteria for responding to, observing, categorizing and reporting incidents? What about the fact those statistics do not include "unjustified" shootings? First rule in statistical analysis is that the analysis can only be as good as the data. There are significant problems with the data.

As a matter of fact, if you read the 2nd quote in the post preceding this one, the FBI even cautions readers from doing exactly what the OP and you are doing.

Once again you show total ignorance in statistical understanding and the difference between explaining aggregate trends vs. individual cases. Your argument is identical to that of the anti-science climate change deniers why blindly dismiss the evidence of human impact of climate change by saying "Gee, that must explain why this was the coldest winter in a century in my town." The cause of differences in aggregated rates need not have anything at all to do with causes of individual shootings. It is logical fallacy to treat them as the same. One could be do to racism and the other not, or both could have nothing to do with racism but the causal factors are distinct. They are completely different kinds of questions. The question for the aggregate data is why are blacks more likely to be shot than whites? The question regarding an individual is why were they personally shot? Unarmed white people are shot also, so the same question must be asked about them too. Unless you are going to say that both unarmed blacks and unarmed whites are shot due to racism, then you are compelled (assuming you care about being reasonable), to recognize that many of the unarmed blacks that are shot are shot for similar reasons as unarmed whites are shot. Thus, unless you have evidence of racism specific to that individual case, you don't have evidence that the shooting would not have occurred if the person were white. The only thing you can do is try to point to aggregate stats as evidence of racism and thus evidence of racism in that specific case. Besides being logically fallacious, it requires that the aggregate stats show something different than would be expected in the absence of racism. They do not. That is what this thread is about. That is what explaining the aggregate stats is about.

In your zeal to defend the police and the "anything but racism" position, your response a fundamental logical problem: explanations for the shooting of armed people rest on the basic premise that the shooter had a reasonable fear for his/her life or the lives of bystanders, a premise that is lacking when the victim is unarmed. No amount of bloviation or misdirection can alter that.

There is no evidence that blacks are shot at rates higher rates than are predicted in the absence of the cops being racist. Differential rates of shootings are NOT evidence of this. They are only evidence if the difference in rates is not predicted by the non-racist factors that ought to impact shootings by cops doing their job. If anything, the evidence of actual rates that is available shows blacks are shot less often than expected, given the even larger difference in rates of violent crime, gun possession, and shooting at the cops.

Your repetition of conclusions based on faulty data does not make those conclusions more convincing.

 

[ksen]

Except those agencies cover most of the population:

In 2007, law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented more than 285 million United States inhabitants—94.6 percent of the total population.

Looks like whoever does not participate must be nit-picking small irrelevances.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/ucr_faqs

Here's what the UCR tracks:

The UCR Program collects offense information for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. These are Part I offenses and are serious crimes by nature and/or volume. Not all crimes, such as embezzlement, are readily brought to the attention of the police. Also, some serious crimes, such as kidnapping, occur infrequently. Therefore, the UCR Program limits the reporting of offenses known to the eight selected crime classifications because they are the crimes most likely to be reported and most likely to occur with sufficient frequency to provide an adequate basis for comparison.

Whoops, I meant to add in this section that the UCR doesn't track the amount of times police officers shoot people so why should we expect any relevant information on how often and why police officers resort to deadly force in the UCR. So it doesn't surprise me that the UCR gets way more voluntary responses than the ARD does.