Maybe not the best example. Brooklyn's a model of gentrification. Biggie would be surprised to see the number of hipsters in Bedstuy talking about the social impact of his first album at a biergarten hookah bar they rode their bikes to.
No, I'm talking about violent crimes committed by those living in poverty. Then we can deal with crime committed by those not in poverty. Thereafter we can get back to blaming me for the poverty disparity. Lord knows my family knows nothing of poverty.
Not by percentage of population, just sheer numbers, which again, is expected, as there are more white people.
You do understand that if white people make up 65% of the population, and 65% of all shootings, that'd be expected, right? But if black people make up 12% of the population, but 24% of all the shootings, that that would be disproportionate to population, right? I EXPECT white people to get shot more often, and at higher number. There are MORE of us. A random shot into a crowd should hit at least three of us.
There are 2.6x more blacks living in poverty than whites living in poverty, therefore the expectation is that povershed blacks will commit crime at a rate 2.6x that of povershed whites.
You know you are loading the figures. You can't compare population totals and random chance to selective populations and specific interactions. Your earlier question was much better. If poverty increases crime, why are minorities disproportionately in poverty?
That's not sheer population as they break it down by interaction. I know you're itching to share the enlightened view, but it's not the only data.
The 2.6x is from Census Bureau for 2015. So its just a single year snapshot. But for the Census.gov look over a period of 2007-2011: So your true value is somewhere between 2.2x and 2.6x, 2.6x just being the most recent I saw, 2.2x being the most recent multi-year view, that I saw.
I think we can all safely agree that in order to be shot/shot and killed by a police officer, you have to be shot/shot and killed by a police officer, right? So the Houston study KB pointed to, that you seemed to think goes against what I'm saying, found that blacks make up about 24% of the population in Houston, but account for 52% or so of the police shootings/killings. So, that's the interactions. All of them. Because the only way to be shot and killed by a police officer IS TO BE shot and killed by a police officer. The Houston study that found that interactions between police officers and shootings reflect population averages, did so for a SUBSET of interactions, namely: And for those interactions, the numbers, according to the article, reflect population numbers. BUT THAT ISN'T ALL INTERACTIONS. That's just THOSE INTERACTIONS.
That's fine for what it is. It misses any qualitative info. Is the crime rate higher among the black population? Is the type of crime different among interactions with the black population? Is there a behavioral difference between interactions wtih the black population and other populations? The problem is drawing conclusions from the data you are posting because it is incomplete. The conclusion is that, because blacks represent a disproportionate number of police shootings when compared to their population, there is widespread racist bias in police forces. The next conclusion is that, because there is racists bias, this specific shooting is racist and biased.
I'm not loading the figures, I'm just inflating white population, and deflating the black population, to make a point. Blacks represent a quarter of the population or so, but their shootings by police represent about half of all shootings. The 2x figure is still the same. I'll answer you in more of a serious way than I responded to kpt, but I'll do so as such: When my mother was in college, there was a big "thing" that occurred. A black man and woman were admitted to her university. My mother. Not my grandmother. Not my great grandmother. My mother. So back to the point: minorities, and specifically blacks have had barely more than two generations of open enrollment in virtually any university, and even fewer chances for similar paying jobs post education. That would be a big one. Education in general. White flight here has pretty well crapped the public school system. It's segregation all over again, with the wealthier white kids attending private schools, and everyone else attending public. And we're not talking about multi-millionaire when I say "wealthier." I mean folks with pretty standard degrees, working pretty standard jobs. But they can still afford the tuition, or at least can make it work on credit.
I don't think those are the conclusions. For some, sure. Not for those looking at it rationally. The conclusion is that blacks represent a quarter of the population but account for half of the shootings. That's the conclusion from the data. The rest is answering the question "why?" But that's unsubstantiated. That's opinion, until something substantial actually comes out.
I don't think that is the position of BLM or the police shooters or the guys kneeling during the national anthem or IP or whatever VK's name is now.
Right, but we're the ones having this discussion. So are you biasing me, rather than just looking at what I'm saying?
I don't think so. I am discussing the limits of the statistical info you provided because I think they are often ignored.
I'll disagree, but only to say I think they are used incorrectly. Not ignored, but incorrectly discussed. Article KB posted did a good job of putting up the proper disclaimer by the authors, basically "this study has limitations." And that the findings of shootings by those interactions reflecting population numbers could be biased based on findings in New York that black drug offenders were twice as likely to catch a resisting arrest charge, than non blacks. Which would pretty heavily skew a study looking at interactions relating to resisting arrest, if the same were true of Houston. Skew it. Not explain it. Just skew it. So, limitations. Not ignored. Just not headlines.
