There are too many confounding variables to use plotted data of violent crime v police shootings, even given the data provided by the OP of this article there is a clear linear regression line that suggests a (not a strong one) correlation but the data is simply not available to be used to make that kind of claim either way. If you can’t isolate the confounding variables there is no way to compare the two things.
I don’t think you’re looking at the same diagram. Looking at the blue Xs on the graph, you’ll see that the closest thing to a line they form goes in the opposite direction of the line representing police killing rates. Without showing the actual math, though, I have no reason to take any claim about a linear regression seriously.
How convenient how there are a whole bunch of “confounding variables” which you refuse to name when you’re looking at information showing no correlation between police killings and violent crime, yet you refuse to consider the possibility that there may be any unknown confounding variables when considering a supposed correlation between black people being killed and the amount of violent crime committed by black people.
Because that doesn’t make sense as I logically explained it. The ones who have run ins with the police and will be killed, whether justifiably (as is the case many times) or in an accident, will most likely be criminals.
You’ve provided no reason to believe that the ones killed are justifiably killed, even if it wasn’t an accident. Saying that a killing is justified is an argument about ethics, not about data.
Therefore you do NOT use the pool of the total population, instead you weigh the population against the tendency for a certain group to commit crime, and then using those numbers you do a per capita analysis of said demographic as they are represented in crime. You only look in the pool of people who are criminals, no one else. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense, it would be like judging a hotdog eating contest where one competitor has hot dogs that are 1/2 the size of the others as equal points.
Wrong. Even if you look at the pool of people who are criminals, that still leaves you with no reason to believe that actually being criminals has anything to do with their likelihood of being shot and killed by police.
Yes for petty misdemeanors and it is because racial profiling works very well. Because they have a probability of committing more crime. It’s literally your own community’s fault you are being profiled.
Racial profiling doesn’t work. Period. This has been repeatedly and consistently proven in a number of different studies on the subject. Not only does it result in an increased number of searches with no significant increase in successful searches, it also allows persons who are committing crimes in other groups to escape scrutiny. Not only that, but just because certain crimes are committed more by members of a group does not mean that any given individual is more likely to have committed a crime.
The moment you try to justify racial profiling is the moment you forfeit the right to argue that there’s no such thing as racial bias in policing. You are defending a form of racial bias that does nothing except cause unnecessary harm to black people.
