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

[Axulus]

List the most relevant factors that you think puts one in a high risk category in being killed by the police, and you have your answer. If you want to claim racism is more than a tiny factor that makes police more likely to kill blacks, you need to prove it rather than assert it with cherry picked anecdotes. Not a single person in this thread has attempted to do so (which was the narrow claim I made, I did not make any claims broader than that other than that the data also don't seem to demonstrate that blacks are arrested more frequently due to racism, since victimization surveys collaborate it).

I am still waiting for the explanation for why the two statistics should be correlated. All I get is some form of "Figure it out yourself" which suggests to me that there is no logical reason for the two to be correlated otherwise I would have received a real explanation.

You seriously can't be this obtuse, can you? I already asked you to list the factors that lead someone to be in a higher risk category to be killed by the police. Are you telling me you can't come up with any off the top of your head, that my exercise is just too challenging?

 

[Barbarian]

I am still waiting for the explanation for why the two statistics should be correlated. All I get is some form of "Figure it out yourself" which suggests to me that there is no logical reason for the two to be correlated otherwise I would have received a real explanation.

OK, here it is:
+ blacks are three times as likely as whites to engage in criminal activity.
+ therefore blacks are at least three times as likely to enter into a confrontation with the police; approximately three times as likely if racism isn't a factor and more than three times as likely if racism is a factor
+ a confrontation with the police ends in the death of the perp in a given fraction of the cases, which is at most as high for whites than as for blacks; it's about the same if there's no racism involved and higher for blacks if there is.
+ so we'd expect to see approximately three times as many blacks being killed by the police as whites if there's no racism involved and more than three times as many blacks killed if there's racism (because in both of the previous points racism increases the factors whose simple product yields the statistics)
+ what we see is that the ratio in question is approximately three to one. Therefore racism isn't a significant factor.

I have no idea if the numbers themselves are correct, but this seems to be the general idea.

 

[maxparrish]

My point was to ridicule the typical cartoon liberal fantasy that some, like Davaka, desperately believe is typical experience. The cartoonist is invoking an arcane stereotype - the white guy behind the counter killing an innocent black youth because of racial hatred and prejudice.

The stereotype, and cartoon, is quite stupid and only embraced by those dwelling in the old liberal fever swamps. Read the article - what is actually real are the 50 convenience store employees that are murdered by thugs (disproportionately black)... the victims mainly being non-white immigrants trying to make a living. In short, it is a bad cartoon in the service of those who cling to a cherished fantasy.

Actually, my kids have all experienced the phenomenon of witnessing their black friends followed around stores while others in the same group are not. So, you are right: blacks are not regarded with greater suspicion than whites.

So a black kid being eyeballed by a store employee is equivalent to white bread employees intentionally murdering innocent black children? That cartoonist doesn't live in your neighborhood by chance, does he?

 

[Toni]

Actually, my kids have all experienced the phenomenon of witnessing their black friends followed around stores while others in the same group are not. So, you are right: blacks are not regarded with greater suspicion than whites.

So a black kid being eyeballed by a store employee is equivalent to white bread employees intentionally murdering innocent black children? That cartoonist doesn't live in your neighborhood by chance, does he?

Really? Why do you think innocent blacks are more likely to end up dead at the hands of police? Blacks are seen as threatening, dangerous and violent while simply living their lives: shopping, walking home with some skittles, etc.

 

[Derec]

Really? Why do you think innocent blacks are more likely to end up dead at the hands of police?

Citation needed. And "unarmed" != "innocent".

 

[laughing dog]

I am still waiting for the explanation for why the two statistics should be correlated. All I get is some form of "Figure it out yourself" which suggests to me that there is no logical reason for the two to be correlated otherwise I would have received a real explanation.

You seriously can't be this obtuse, can you? I already asked you to list the factors that lead someone to be in a higher risk category to be killed by the police. Are you telling me you can't come up with any off the top of your head, that my exercise is just too challenging?

For someone who seems incapable of explaining his claims, this response is meta-ironical.

 

[laughing dog]

I am still waiting for the explanation for why the two statistics should be correlated. All I get is some form of "Figure it out yourself" which suggests to me that there is no logical reason for the two to be correlated otherwise I would have received a real explanation.

OK, here it is:
+ blacks are three times as likely as whites to engage in criminal activity.
+ therefore blacks are at least three times as likely to enter into a confrontation with the police; approximately three times as likely if racism isn't a factor and more than three times as likely if racism is a factor
+ a confrontation with the police ends in the death of the perp in a given fraction of the cases, which is at most as high for whites than as for blacks; it's about the same if there's no racism involved and higher for blacks if there is.
+ so we'd expect to see approximately three times as many blacks being killed by the police as whites if there's no racism involved and more than three times as many blacks killed if there's racism (because in both of the previous points racism increases the factors whose simple product yields the statistics)
+ what we see is that the ratio in question is approximately three to one. Therefore racism isn't a significant factor.

I have no idea if the numbers themselves are correct, but this seems to be the general idea.

Thank you for the explanation. I see it ignores the race of the police in the arrests and shootings, and I believe that the statistics on killings by police are not complete.

 

[maxparrish]

So a black kid being eyeballed by a store employee is equivalent to white bread employees intentionally murdering innocent black children? That cartoonist doesn't live in your neighborhood by chance, does he?

Really? Why do you think innocent blacks are more likely to end up dead at the hands of police? Blacks are seen as threatening, dangerous and violent while simply living their lives: shopping, walking home with some skittles, etc.

Flailing over black youth being eyeballed by store employees, and then free-lancing speculation on the cause of police killing black youth are dodging straw men, twice over. In short:

"My point was to ridicule the typical cartoon liberal fantasy that some, like Davka, desperately believe is typical experience. The cartoonist is invoking an arcane stereotype - the white guy behind the counter killing an innocent black youth because of racial hatred and prejudice.

The stereotype, and cartoon, is quite stupid and only embraced by those dwelling in the old liberal fever swamps. Read the article - what is actually real are the 50 convenience store employees that are murdered by thugs (disproportionately black)... the victims mainly being non-white immigrants trying to make a living. In short, it is a bad cartoon in the service of those who cling to a cherished fantasy. "

Wailing about employees eyeballing black youth, and the police actions have little to do with what is portrayed in this cartoon. My suggestion, accept the fact that the cartoon is rubbish, regardless of what other dubious nonsense you embrace.

 

[Toni]

Really? Why do you think innocent blacks are more likely to end up dead at the hands of police? Blacks are seen as threatening, dangerous and violent while simply living their lives: shopping, walking home with some skittles, etc.

Flailing over black youth being eyeballed by store employees, and then free-lancing speculation on the cause of police killing black youth are dodging straw men, twice over. In short:

"My point was to ridicule the typical cartoon liberal fantasy that some, like Davka, desperately believe is typical experience. The cartoonist is invoking an arcane stereotype - the white guy behind the counter killing an innocent black youth because of racial hatred and prejudice.

The stereotype, and cartoon, is quite stupid and only embraced by those dwelling in the old liberal fever swamps. Read the article - what is actually real are the 50 convenience store employees that are murdered by thugs (disproportionately black)... the victims mainly being non-white immigrants trying to make a living. In short, it is a bad cartoon in the service of those who cling to a cherished fantasy. "

Wailing about employees eyeballing black youth, and the police actions have little to do with what is portrayed in this cartoon. My suggestion, accept the fact that the cartoon is rubbish, regardless of what other dubious nonsense you embrace.

I'm sorry that you seem to be unable to understand my logic or reasoning. Or the meaning of the word 'flail.' Or 'nonsense.'

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Really? Why do you think innocent blacks are more likely to end up dead at the hands of police?

Citation needed. And "unarmed" != "innocent".

Very true! "Not convicted of the crime of which he is accused in a court of law" = "innocent." For precisely the sam reason "armed" is also not equivalent to guilty.

 

[Toni]

Really? Why do you think innocent blacks are more likely to end up dead at the hands of police?

Citation needed. And "unarmed" != "innocent".

What? Didn't you read the 'analysis' presented in the OP links?

We all realize that in Derec's world, black = guilty. Citations of your posts are far too numerous to know where to begin...

 

[untermensche]

1. A society has racist tendencies.

2. Racial minorities are demonized and believed to be deviant and more prone to crime.

3. Cities are segregated on racial lines.

4. A greater police presence exists in neighborhoods in the demonized segments of society.

5. More arrests are made where the greatest police presence exists.

There is not more crime in the racially segregated sections of the society. There is just a greater police presence.

And a lot of false arrests and convictions.

 

[Axulus]

OK, here it is:
+ blacks are three times as likely as whites to engage in criminal activity.
+ therefore blacks are at least three times as likely to enter into a confrontation with the police; approximately three times as likely if racism isn't a factor and more than three times as likely if racism is a factor
+ a confrontation with the police ends in the death of the perp in a given fraction of the cases, which is at most as high for whites than as for blacks; it's about the same if there's no racism involved and higher for blacks if there is.
+ so we'd expect to see approximately three times as many blacks being killed by the police as whites if there's no racism involved and more than three times as many blacks killed if there's racism (because in both of the previous points racism increases the factors whose simple product yields the statistics)
+ what we see is that the ratio in question is approximately three to one. Therefore racism isn't a significant factor.

I have no idea if the numbers themselves are correct, but this seems to be the general idea.

Thank you for the explanation. I see it ignores the race of the police in the arrests and shootings, and I believe that the statistics on killings by police are not complete.

Do you have a cite for the incompleteness of the data used from the source in the OP? Do you have a more complete source that demonstrates the claimed racism in the police killings of blacks? Remember, I never claimed no racism involved in any single incident of police killing, just that the effect is so small as to not be apparent and determinable in the overall data.

 

[Axulus]

There is not more crime in the racially segregated sections of the society.

The data suggests otherwise (if we are talking about black neighborhoods.) This is directly from counting up the number of victims themselves. Do you think a large number of these black victims are lying about being victimized and the race of the perpetrator they claim victimized them? Why would you think that? What specifically do you think is wrong with the data I posted in the OP, and please provide a source for the "correct" data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, this is a very straightforward admission that you don't understand what he's saying.

Loren: I think we UNDERSTAND very well what he is saying. You and Axulus are specialists in pretending that there is no racism...just bad blacks. Both of you ought to come off your high horses and realize there is still time in your life to make peace with minorities. Your charts are charts of your own and the police attitudes, not some inherent racial crime factor. Racial descrimination is capable over time of creating economic and social stresses on the underclass that set them up to be criminals when they truly intend no criminality at all. In my community, it is hispanics that take it on the chin. The phenomenon of tough and abusive cops is well understood and you guys just refuse to understand that. There really is no logical escape from the facts of police brutality. You can't use charts to make it go away or make it right.

You're still simply assuming racism is widespread.

The data does not support this--studies that supposedly show racism almost inevitably ignore the possibility that race is a proxy for SES.

Your position rests on a house of cards.

We look, we see the house of cards.


I do agree there are abusive cops but it shows up in the small things, not in stats like how many are shot by the police.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, this is a very straightforward admission that you don't understand what he's saying.

That is certainly a possibility. However, no one has yet to present the logical connection between the two statistics. Now, if you believe you understand what he is saying, perhaps you could offer the logical connection between the two statistics. Until someone does offer logical connection between the two statistics, my observation stands.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps SES is a proxy for race. In any case, there is no good excuse for justice and safety to be dependent upon SES in a fair and just society.

They know which is which.

When you are analyzing the data you look for what variables are needed to get the best fit for the data and which ones are useless. For example, in this case:

1) Poor = more likely to convict.

2) Black = more likely to convict.

Now you do test #3, two variables, poor & black.

Which produces the best fit? If race is a proxy for SES then curves #1 and #3 will be equal and #2 will be worse. If SES is a proxy for race then #2 and #3 will be equal and #1 worse. If #3 is better than the others then both matter. When faced with two tests that produce equally good fits and one contains an extra variable you discard that curve, the extra variable is merely a proxy.

In practice honest research into racial issues almost always ends up with poor being what counts, race only being a proxy. Dishonest research almost never does this test in the first place.

The process you just described produces statistically biased estimates. It is a form of cherry-picking. In practice, honest and competent researchers would never use such a process.

Learn a little something about statistics!

These days with the computer you run *ALL* combinations of the variables you have to see what inputs matter. An input matters if you get a better prediction using it than not using it. An input is a proxy if it's correlated with the results but does nothing to improve the accuracy of your prediction when you consider other variables. There's nothing biased about this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They know which is which.

When you are analyzing the data you look for what variables are needed to get the best fit for the data and which ones are useless. For example, in this case:

1) Poor = more likely to convict.

2) Black = more likely to convict.

Now you do test #3, two variables, poor & black.

Which produces the best fit? If race is a proxy for SES then curves #1 and #3 will be equal and #2 will be worse. If SES is a proxy for race then #2 and #3 will be equal and #1 worse. If #3 is better than the others then both matter. When faced with two tests that produce equally good fits and one contains an extra variable you discard that curve, the extra variable is merely a proxy.

In practice honest research into racial issues almost always ends up with poor being what counts, race only being a proxy. Dishonest research almost never does this test in the first place.

And of course the truth of this perspective is borne out by the fact that black people are only hassled in poor neighborhoods, and that a well-educated, well-spoken black professional wearing business attire would never be racially profiled by police. For example, a black Harvard professor in a nice neighborhood would be treated with nothing but respect by police if his front door happened to be jammed shut, forcing him to enter through the back and call University maintenance to report the problem.

Because the profiling is all about SES, not skin color.

You're looking at totally different things.

There certainly is such hassle by police but that's a very different thing than errant convictions or shootings.

And your example is a very bad example--he was treated appropriately by the cops. Pulling a do-you-know-who-I-am when confronted while doing something suspicious is not a proper response.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

List the most relevant factors that you think puts one in a high risk category in being killed by the police, and you have your answer. If you want to claim racism is more than a tiny factor that makes police more likely to kill blacks, you need to prove it rather than assert it with cherry picked anecdotes. Not a single person in this thread has attempted to do so (which was the narrow claim I made, I did not make any claims broader than that other than that the data also don't seem to demonstrate that blacks are arrested more frequently due to racism, since victimization surveys collaborate it).

I am still waiting for the explanation for why the two statistics should be correlated. All I get is some form of "Figure it out yourself" which suggests to me that there is no logical reason for the two to be correlated otherwise I would have received a real explanation.

Apparently you are missing the obvious: Police shootings are highly correlated with violent crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no idea what processes are used and I suspect neither does LP. But picking variables by their contribution to the goodness of fit and then claiming some sort of statistical significance for them leads to biased estimates.

Just because you don't like reality doesn't make it go away. When was your last staditics class?

It's not a biased process because you're looking at everything and seeing what matters.

In the old days of manual calculations you could get bias from failing to consider a possibility and thus not checking it. The computer doesn't do that sort of thing, though.

- - - Updated - - -

I am still waiting for the explanation for why the two statistics should be correlated. All I get is some form of "Figure it out yourself" which suggests to me that there is no logical reason for the two to be correlated otherwise I would have received a real explanation.

OK, here it is:
+ blacks are three times as likely as whites to engage in criminal activity.
+ therefore blacks are at least three times as likely to enter into a confrontation with the police; approximately three times as likely if racism isn't a factor and more than three times as likely if racism is a factor
+ a confrontation with the police ends in the death of the perp in a given fraction of the cases, which is at most as high for whites than as for blacks; it's about the same if there's no racism involved and higher for blacks if there is.
+ so we'd expect to see approximately three times as many blacks being killed by the police as whites if there's no racism involved and more than three times as many blacks killed if there's racism (because in both of the previous points racism increases the factors whose simple product yields the statistics)
+ what we see is that the ratio in question is approximately three to one. Therefore racism isn't a significant factor.

I have no idea if the numbers themselves are correct, but this seems to be the general idea.

One gripe here: It's not "criminal activity", but "violent criminal activity". Embezzlers and the like almost never get shot by the police unless they pull a suicide-by-cop.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, here it is:
+ blacks are three times as likely as whites to engage in criminal activity.
+ therefore blacks are at least three times as likely to enter into a confrontation with the police; approximately three times as likely if racism isn't a factor and more than three times as likely if racism is a factor
+ a confrontation with the police ends in the death of the perp in a given fraction of the cases, which is at most as high for whites than as for blacks; it's about the same if there's no racism involved and higher for blacks if there is.
+ so we'd expect to see approximately three times as many blacks being killed by the police as whites if there's no racism involved and more than three times as many blacks killed if there's racism (because in both of the previous points racism increases the factors whose simple product yields the statistics)
+ what we see is that the ratio in question is approximately three to one. Therefore racism isn't a significant factor.

I have no idea if the numbers themselves are correct, but this seems to be the general idea.

Thank you for the explanation. I see it ignores the race of the police in the arrests and shootings, and I believe that the statistics on killings by police are not complete.

In other words, I'm right, ignore the reality.


Since the statistics on people killed by the cops were what started this thread you can't then say they're incomplete and thus not relevant!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1. A society has racist tendencies.

2. Racial minorities are demonized and believed to be deviant and more prone to crime.

3. Cities are segregated on racial lines.

4. A greater police presence exists in neighborhoods in the demonized segments of society.

5. More arrests are made where the greatest police presence exists.

There is not more crime in the racially segregated sections of the society. There is just a greater police presence.

And a lot of false arrests and convictions.

[Citation needed]

Furthermore, look at any map of reported crimes. You'll find a big hot spot in the inner city areas. Are you saying that's simply a fabrication??

Here's a map of recent (a couple of days) reports where I live. Look at how the reports cluster. Ignore the cluster along Las Vegas Blvd--that's a collection of skyscraper hotels, the number of people there is huge, of course you have more incidents.

On the map I'm seeing (given the short time frame this could change) there's a big cluster of assaults just east of downtown. That's an area you don't want to be wandering around after dark.