What are the confounding variables between someone who is black and someone who commits a crime? There are ways to isolate this information, i.e crime type, perpetrator, victim. Even studies looking at crime through three lenses, subspecies, poverty, and education level has found that race is the highest correlated. There are no confounding variables when you consider these two absolutes, who is committing the most crime, what is their population. The reasons why are something you may posit but the information it’s self is empirical meaning no confounding variables.

I am not making any claims that each time a black guy dies from a cop it is justified. I included a margin of error for these things. Even so these confounding variables are the stars aligning like I said.

The argument is not from ethics it is from the course of the law which is defined, not by relativity. Does the cop have reason to believe his life is in danger? There is an entire body of common law and The Common Law to decide that. Whether it is moral is left up to anyone’s interpretation.

None of that is ad-hominem, learn your logical fallacies.

Mark’s critique misses the mark entirely, he is arguing from semantics rather than genetic sequencing that is present through different categories on the globe. Though the irish may not be considered white, they have their own ancestry and subspecies, the races are not as simple as cacausoid, mongloid, and negroid. There are many different subspecies and when you look at the common traits of those subspecies such as the Ashkenazi Jew you can find measurably similar features, etc.

No. If more black people are criminals based on the percentage of the population than it is reasonable to posit that a black person is more likely to become a criminal. You are arguing from semantics and it’s just wrong. Just because the criminal population is small (it’s small for every subspecies), does not mean that more blacks are not committing crimes. They are.