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, was he resisting, was the cop trigger happy, was the man a reasonable threat, is the area known for gun violence, are there many gangs in the area, was it a police shoot out, was it suicide by cop, was the man otherwise a violent criminal but decided to lay his arms down, was he unarmed, if he was unarmed did he still have some methodology to kill the cop, did the cop use restraining force in the confines of the law and the man died from an external cause, was it a child committing the crime so there was more leniency, did the man in question have a violent past, did the person in question bring the death upon themselves by killing civies, what is the police force like in the city, what is the gang life like in the city, what is the ethnic composition of that city, what if the liklihood of blacks being in a shoot out with police in that city given the culture and demographic, etc. It is impossible to isolate these variables especially when you consider that only about a1000 deaths occurred by cop, in the year 2014. A statically irrelevant number to the US population. and about 600 shootings this year, but again confounding variable, cop animosity is at an all time high and people are dropping like flies who try to kill cops.

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?

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. If someone poses a reasonable threat they may kill them much like you or I would be able to protect our own lives given a situation where a gun is locked and loaded. You need to consider each case on a case by case basis. Was Castile justifiably killed? Given the current narrative, no, but there has been no conclusive police report, once one is released that explains whether or not he had a CCW permit you will know whether to trust the woman’s testimony or not. If he committed a crime in the past you are inelligble for a permit. Even given the fact he committed a crime and did not have a permit he still might have been unjustly killed, but we won’t know until the facts surface.

3. 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.

4. Racial profiling does work. Period. Your heavily biased studies are run by groups that have incentives to misinterpret information and statistics, hence this is where the myth of race is a social construct comes from. 200k years of speciation has led to decernably different traits. 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.

And there is no profiling for violent crime, there is no profiling for victimization statistics. Profiling results in petty crime convictions and these are self caused by the black community, want to stop being profiled? commit less crime.