I want to ask this very clearly: do white people have more cars than black people? So the fact that they are stopped more, because they are on the road more, is somehow significant to you? Congrats, you have made the point that 2+2=4, and that more means more. Thanks for bringing elementary school into this discussion. Is there anything else, or do you need to go color now?
Ladies and gentlemen, BPV would like you to know that getting shot at a traffic stop can't happen without a traffic stop. And since white people (who are more likely to have a traffic stop, because, they have, ya know, a car) are more likey to get shot at a traffic stop than black people (who lack cars, and thus can't get shot at a traffic stop), then everything else is silliness. And if you didn't know that you can't get shot at a traffic stop, without actually being in a traffic stop... I have suckers for you.
Any study of that kind is going to be necessarily limited, but what it essentially does is take the X, 2.5X data that float refers to, and it drills down further and asks ore questions. It's like the yards per carry to the total yards that is the X, 2.5X statistic. Both are statistics, and one is just a better, more informative statistic in every meaningful way.
Ok, then I still think we need to be very careful when using resisting arrest as part of that category. Resisting arrest is a guilty until proven innocent charge, and it is completely arbitrary. Consider an individual who is not guilty of a crime, but is arrested, and at the discretion of the officer, resists. That individual is now guilty of the crime of resisting a wrongful arrest. And now they're a criminal, for real this time.
When looking at things that can't be substantiated, though, drilling down is very, very dangerous, and less informative than just keeping it at a higher level.
There's political ramifications from enforcement of laws. That's why it will always be more heavy handed in poorer areas regardless of color, since they're not as connected or not as politically powerful.
It's less information in that it's a smaller sample size, but within that sample size, it's much more information. If the guy that did this study continues along with this topic and does more studies -- and I hope he does because it's certainly worth exploring -- the sample size concerns become less of an issue. But the data is surely better in that it doesn't just assume that "yeah, this discrepancy is because of racism", which is just the laziest of all lazy narratives. It does the opposite and asks the questions necessary to get to the bottom of what the lazy narrative just assumes.
That's pretty close to my position. Like I said, I don't think these cops are all racists, just that the results are disproportionate to population sizes.
Well, if the difference in stop frequency by population is greater than the difference in shooting frequency by population, he has a point. I just haven't seen reliable data on that yet.
The number would have to be greater than about 3x. If it's greater than three times, I'll be happy to say I'm wrong as hell. If not, it is fully in the range of "expected." At the same time, it is also a magic bullshit number, as "verbal warnings," are stops that, and I'm hazarding a guess here, likely aren't historically logged for tracking purposes. So the data is already suspect, and skewed in favor of inflating the fatality to stop ratio for whites because it isn't looking at all stops, if the verbal warnings given to whites isn't included in the denominator of white stops.
If you use only stops you are still ignoring any qualitative factors. if a cop stops me for swerving all over the road, I get out of the car cursing and behaving aggressively, ignore demands to stop, and reach in my pocket despite instructions not to do so, is that the same as a black person pulled over for a roll through stop who complies? Does it matter if i am a large man and black person is a small woman? If I'm driving a beater and she's in a new minivan? If I'm in a poor, crime ridden neighborhood, and she is in the suburbs? The results are disproportionate. The reason for that may not be racism by police officers. The fact that the results are disproportionate does not automatically equal injustice.
I'm still not following how pointing out that policies and procedures that affect one particular subset of the population disproportionately is somehow the same as saying that the reason is racism, or injustice. Or why every. time. it is pointed out. the follow up, however reasonable, comes back to racism or injustice. It can be both disproportionate AND NOT racist.
My take is solely and will always be based on poverty. And because blacks are more likely to be impoverished, by that reason, they will be disproportionately targeted, even if by coincidence. But historical racism (even if not current) is at the heart of the poverty, because during the period when a college education meant the most, and the poverty level of whites fell by almost half, BEFORE education became less important as it is today, black people, because of racism, couldn't get an education, and a well enough paying job.
That's the topic of the thread, and that's the reason for the one knee protest, and that's the reason for BLM. So in a thread with "injustice" in the title, I keep coming back to the idea of injustice. I do not think you are trying to show that cops are racist with those statistics. I think that those statistics are being used by many to demonstrated racism by cops when they do not necessarily do so. I think there are more factors than just racism by our forefathers.
And I never chimed in during the NFL thread. I replied to BPV concerning stats. There are more factors. That's the one I think is the largest, affecting more things downstream than any other. Of those down stream things, I think the largest, easiest to demonstrate quantitatively is poverty, and I think there is a very demonstratable correlation between poverty and education.
I don't know how I can elaborate on it more than I already have. What more do you want, behind the poverty rate being 2.6 times larger for blacks than whites, and the fact that whites have and access to pretty well any university since the creation of universities, and blacks have only had that same access for 60 years. As in like the first black guy to attend the University of Alabama's kid isn't even old enough to retire yet.
To tie it back in the with the police shootings/brutality argument. I think that's still what we're talking about, right? So we're essentially filling in the blank on "the fact that blacks, on a per capita basis, get shot by cops 2.6X more than whites doesn't need to be lazily assumed to be as a result of racist cops because it can easily be accounted for by ________________ ". You're stating that the poverty rate is greater for blacks, which is true. You're saying that there is a correlation -- and probably a strong one -- between poverty and education, which is also certainly true. But then you're not linking the educational point back to the fill in the blank sentence above. And its not completely intuitive to me how it fits in there.
