No I just specified a bunch right there

Not when you originally said anything about “confounding variables.” You’re either being willfully obtuse or completely lack the ability to understand the context in which I’m speaking.

and not only that I told you that there were instances in which police get away with murder, how could it be possible that those are the more common place ones. What you are telling me is out of the nearly 600 people killed this year. The stars aligned to allow the system of checks and balances to kill them a huge amount, which what I’ve seen from the BLM narrative I know not to be true.

I didn’t say that. What I asked you is why you are refusing to consider any possible confounding variables when blaming black people for their own deaths.

No, that’s wrong, morality is relative. No matter the act, the end result is relative.

So in other words, when you make an ethical argument I have to take it seriously, but when I make an ethical argument you dismiss it on the grounds of morality being relative.

If morality is completely relative, then you have no grounds for continuing to justify your own existence, because you wouldn’t be able to argue that someone with a different set of values shouldn’t kill you. For that matter, if morality is completely relative, then you cannot argue that there’s nothing wrong with killing police in retaliation for them killing black people.

yes, which is why you need to couple them with DOJ victimization statistics as I stated earlier. And because violent crimes like murder, have no statute of limitations in the US, the FBIs violent crime ratio should hold true.

And I will ask you again: why are you not considering the possibility of confounding variables here? You have an incredibly nuanced view of correlations between crime rates and police violence when it doesn’t support your view, but you suddenly show no such consideration here.

The implicit bias that exists is analogous to a game of black jack where you know to hit and to stay on certain numbers, it is a self caused black phenomenon that resulted from the proliferation of single motherhood due to welfare incentives. As I have stated before welfare, blacks had a lower crime rates than whites. And the effect of not having a nuclear family is dismal.

Incentives drive research studies, most researchers are robotic in nature so they need to couch their narrative or findings in order to get them through, for example a man who studied the gender pay gap myth tried to release his findings through different avenues but nobody would take them until he spun the results to say women choose to earn less than men, and here is what they can do about. The canadian HRC has time and time overstepped their bounds and looked for strife where there was none in order to keep the money coming in. They fined a comedian 100k for making a joke about a retarded kid, where is the sense in that? Comedy is supposed to take dark subjects and lighten them up. They have also made strict attacks on anyone who opposed to perform the act of gay marriage in their own establishment, though these other establishments exist where they can get gay married. They made money off the greivance industry and continue to do so, so they will never have a true version of the info. Just logically speaking profiling works. For the reasons I’ve stated before. And when logic is sound, you consider it rather than debating it with insanely biased sources.

This is a long series of circumstantial ad-hominems. It does not logically follow from any of this that the information I’ve given you is necessarily wrong.

You’re not even looking at the sources that were cited in the article itself, all of which are unconnected to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The only thing they did was gather and summarize the sources. They did not pay for, fund, or otherwise publish any of them, nor did they receive any money for citing them.

This study finds not only that the presumed benefits of racial profiling are often illusory, but illustrates that the limited advantages it offers diminish rapidly the longer it is carried out.

This study finds that group size does not affect the efficiency of profiling, and that preventing crime is best done by deterrence that focuses on marginal offenders (that is, people equally likely to commit a crime or not commit a crime) rather than on members of a group that commits more crimes, as doing the latter would encourage the rest of the population to increase criminal activity.
Here is a study showing that racial profiling leads to decreased trust between the populace and law enforcement, so even if it does work (it doesn’t), it still has negative consequences.

Wrong, that’s lewontin’s fallacy. It has been debunked numerous times.

Lewtonin’s fallacy is a 2003 paper which has been criticized by several other researchers. Biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks notes that “what is unclear is what this has to do with ‘race’ as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century — the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin’s analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards’ critique does not contradict that interpretation.”

Even so, the claim that race is a social construct can easily be demonstrated by one simple fact: how people have categorized others by race has changed across history according to social conventions. The Irish were originally not considered white, but now they are.

That would be true if blacks weren’t committing 4.3 more crimes than whites when you adjust the population sizes.

This doesn’t disprove the claim that focusing on one group allows other groups to get away with a crime more often.

No that is the logical fallacy of false equivalence, you are comparing two things that are not similar in the least bit. It would be more accurate to assume that if black women are 4.3x more likely to be pregnant then given a variety of different people and you had to pick on that was pregnant off hand, then picking the black one was the best bet.

You’re the one making the false equivalence here. The data you’ve shown me (taking your interpretation of it at face value, mind you) doesn’t show that black people are likely to be criminals, only that criminals are likely to be black. Those are two different things.

Compared to the total population of black people, the amount of black people who have committed crimes is still very small. When you target someone for profiling, you don’t actually know whether they’ve committed a crime. If you focus your efforts on a person because more criminals are like them, but that person themself still has a small chance of having committed a crime, there’s a large chance you’ll just end up finding nothing and wasting your resources.