It’s become astoundingly clear to me you don’t know what a confounding variable is, well okay let me educate you in order for a cop to shoot a man there are many factors to take into account

No, I know what a confounding variable is. My point was not only that you’re refusing to specify what those are, which doesn’t give the impression that you’re not just making it up, but even more importantly that you’re utterly refusing to consider any of this when blaming the victims of police violence for their own deaths.

Where was all of that nuance in your original post?

As for the regression analysis, you don’t know what that is either huh? You look at how far the X marks are from the red boxes and either side and weigh it accordingly. Under would be a negative, over would be a postive the degree of distance is the answer for the regression. Looking at this chart off hand you can see that it is pretty much even, there are outliers on both sides and clusters of small positives and or negatives make up the majority of the line. The negatives, ergo crime rate being lower than cop fatality rate wins out in the end but not by much. Guess your useless liberal arts degree didnt teach you that huh?

I’m in STEM, actually, though admittedly it’s been a while since I’ve taken statistics. Most of the linear regressions I’ve worked with have involved graphs where each dot represents an a pair of X and Y values on a scatter plot, and finding a linear regression is done with a least-squares approach. This typically results in a line that roughly appears to fit the pattern of dots, such as this:

The mistake I made was in assuming that the graph showed previously was a scatter plot of the same kind: if you look closely at it you’ll find that each dot only represents a single variable mapped to a specific city, not to a value on the X-axis.

Regardless, I don’t have the time right now to do an actual calculation and without seeing the math I’m not going to simply take your word for it. Even if there is a correlation, by your own admission it’s too weak to mean anything, so it’s hardly relevant now.

your second point, no it isn’t, it’s about the current laws. A police officer has the right to defend themself as much as they have the right to defend others.

I don’t care about the law. The state is not, has never been, and will never be a metric for ethics. Just look at all the horrible things that have been perfectly legal in history.

Even the guarantee of a right to self-defense does not guarantee the right to defend oneself with lethal force against attackers that don’t possess a similar threat to your own life. Police have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and have a greater ease of access to weaponry, the power to kill is always going to be weighed in their favor. That’s the problem.

Wrong, you don’t know how probability works, as I explained before it is possible to make judgements given a group, it is possible to infer probabilities given an individual, but once the wave function collapses there is only one single truth. The amount of non criminals killed by cops, probably a very small amount given the fact cops aren’t signing up for their jobs thinking “oh we are going to go N**** hunting today”. Do some slip through the cracks, yes. But even accounting for that margin of error you use the total criminal pool instead of population totals.

You still haven’t proven that these are actually criminals you’re talking about. I looked at Table 43 of the FBI, as you cited in your original post, and what it shows is the rate of arrests, not the rate of crime. Those two things are completely distinct from each other. Unless you’ve suddenly forgotten about that pesky “innocent until proven guilty” thing.

You’re also making the mistake of thinking that racism is simply a matter of hating black people to the point of making a conscious effort to hunt them down and kill them, and not as is more often the case a matter of implicit bias.

Racial profiling does work. Period. Your heavily biased studies are run by groups that have incentives to misinterpret information and statistics

Incentives prove nothing. If they did, all criminal trials would be unsolvable because defense attorneys have an incentive to find their client innocent and prosecutors have an incentive to find the defendant guilty. You’ve done nothing that would demonstrate at all that what I’ve just shown you is wrong, simply dismissing because it’s “biased.”

What’s really going on here is that you’re too full of yourself to admit the possibility that you could be wrong, and dismissing evidence that contradicts your own view.

hence this is where the myth of race is a social construct comes from. 200k years of speciation has led to decernably different traits.

That has nothing to do with anything we’re talking about, but discernibly different traits only correspond to phenotypes, not race.

Again you don’t understand how probability works, given a bowl of MMs and you are told 10% of the black ones are poisoned you can reasonably remove those black MMs from the bowl to escape the risk, you can conduct individual tests on MMs to determine whether or not they will kill you, but making the assumption an individual is more likely to commit a crime because his demographic is highly misrepresented in crime makes perfect sense. And it has been this way for decades, not a new phenomenon that blacks are committing an amazing amount of crime.

That’s a false comparison on two counts. Firstly, that analogy only works if you assume that black people are the only ones committing crime. White people commit crimes as well, and focusing disproportionate resources on black people has been shown to increase the likelihood of white people who commit the same crimes being unaffected. If 10% of the black M&Ms were poisoned, and 5% of the white ones were poisoned, if you spent your resources examining mostly black M&M’s you carry an increased risk of eating a poisoned white M&M.

Secondly, the statistics only show that criminals have a high chance of being black, not that black people have a high chance of being criminals. A more accurate comparison would be to say that 53% of poisoned M&Ms are black, but that only 7% of black M&M’s are poison.

Racial profiling means assuming that because criminals are likely to be black, any given black person targeted for an inspection is likely to be criminal. This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. It’s like assuming that because pregnant people are almost always women, therefore any given woman is almost always going to be pregnant.