Thinking it Through

[Steve R.]

The unfortunate deaths of George Floyd and Ravshard Brooks have been lumped together by the left as vivid "proof" of police brutality against the Black community to promote the deplorable narrative of "systemic racism". These two regrettable deaths need to be analyzed based on two different hypotheses concerning police interactions with members of the Black community.

First, there is no evidence that Derek Chauvin acted with any racial animus towards Floyd. So on the surface this was not a racial incident. However, the left pulls out statistical data that supposedly demonstrates that the police discriminate against the Black community. The left therefore concludes that the death of Floyd must be a racial incident and pushes that (false) narrative. This approach has now been extended to now apply to the death of Brooks. (So far, no evidence that Garrett Rolfe acted with racial animus against Brooks has emerged.)

However, the left ignores that aggregate data cannot be used in this one incident to declare (in isolation) that was actually a racist incident. Of course, aggregate data can be used to assert that the police as a whole could be unjustly singling out members of the Black community. But there is another hypothesis that needs to be considered.

That hypothesis is that members of the Black community when confronted by the police "escalate", in some cases, the incident so that it becomes violent. This is where the death of Brooks comes in. Was he an example of a Black person resisting arrest and escalating the level of violence? If so, his actions demonstrate, in part, that perceived police brutality against the Black community has not been appropriately analyzed. Again, it needs to be reiterated that one incident does not prove a hypothesis, but it does make it something to be considered.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Perhaps Brooks' transition to violence after 45 minutes of decent treatment and civil exchanges is due to the race baiters pushing the police brutality lie and when the police tried to cuff him, he panicked because he thought he was going to die since that's all he ever hears from the press. Then the cop panicked and overreacted and the prophecy came true. It took TWO wrongs to make that happen, but that doesn't make Brooks' undead. It also doesn't make the cops racist or brutal. There was nothing racist or brutal in their treatment of Brooks' until the moment Brooks tried to disarm the cop and the video shows that. The cop definitely overreacted but panicked people do stupid things.

 

[Jon]

My understanding is that the data says that the police are more likely to use lethal force if the victim is white, rather than black. Can anyone provide evidence that this is not the case?

Edit: I say this after listening to Sam Harris on his recent podcast.

 

[Isaac]

There are 10 million arrests per year. About 1000 people end up dead at the hand of police. Most of them are white.

Most people haven't heard of Tony Timpa. Quiz question: What do all of the people who were shot by police who no one has ever heard of, marched or rioted for, or lobbied congress for, have in common?

 

[Jon]

@pisorsisaac@gmail.co White. It was a point I made in another post about the innocent white lady who was shot by a black police officer, also in Minneapolis. In fact, she called the police for help, but ended up dead!

There are 10 million arrests per year. About 1000 people end up dead at the hand of police. Most of them are white.

Edit: I would like to add that I think it is more about the relative number killed as opposed to the absolute. The white population is larger so you would expect there to be more dead there.

I agree with this guy:

Edit 2: I will be pleased when all this division between the races dies down. Getting fed up with it!

 

[moke123]

Per Statista . . .

 

[Jon]

Is that related to police encounters or just the population as a whole? The reason I bring this up is that due to high crime in some black communities, the number of encounters with police goes up significantly. If you do not factor that in, the above chart is effectively meaningless for this argument.

What is needed is a chart that shows the risk to life based on a police encounter. Do you agree?

Edit: Also, the nature of the encounter is relevant too. If one group is involved in more violent crime, or say gun related, then this will influence the data significantly. Do you agree with that?

 

[Isaac]

@moke123 That may be shootings vs. other killings in police custody or I don't know what the difference is, but clearly we all get our statistics from different places.
Here's one that says the total number of shootings is about 1000...what I said a few posts ago.....whereas you only have about 70! Clearly as Mark Twain said, there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Everyone (including me) seem to have their pet statistics. Statistica seems always bent in one direction, but here's the WAPO version, https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

 

[Isaac]

oh never mind, yours is per million--got it. so we're all being killed by the police. and demographics who commit the most crimes are being killed at twice the rate because they have tons more encounters with police. it makes sense to me. we have a serious problem with police brutality that needs to be addressed IMO.

 

[Jon]

@pisorsisaac@gmail.co Let me add some clarity, since statistics is something I am quite well versed in.

Source: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2&selYrs=2018&rdoGroups=3&rdoData=rp

The above chart shows that if you are a black adult, you commit 53% of all murders, but they are only 13% of the population. If you look at the juvenile rate, it is even worse.

Wikipedia says this:

Homicide...The offending rate for African Americans was almost eight times higher than Whites, and the victim rate six times higher.

So, I would argue that the risk of the police fatally shooting a black offender, per encounter, is much higher because they are involved in much more violent crime like homicide.

I am not trying to blame one side or the other. I am just trying to explain what the statistics show and you can make of that what you like.

Consequently, that would partially explain why moke's graph shows blacks having more fatal shootings than whites, as a rate.

If anyone doesn't understand what I am going on about here, then please let me know and I will try to explain it a bit better. Or, if you think my calculations or reasoning is way off, let me know too.

 

[Isaac]

Yes

 

[Pat Hartman]

@Jon, thanks for posting that video. I hope everyone watches it. And the Bill Mayer that follows it is hysterical.

@Moke, I'm not sure where you got those statistics. More than twice as many whites as blacks are killed by police. Once you understand that there are six times as many whites as blacks in the country, you can see how awful that kill rate is. HOWEVER, If you are talking about police shootings, you really need to reduce your numbers to unarmed victims because if you are brandishing a weapon, the police are going to kill you rather than let you kill them. 2019, the stats come down to. Wow, the WaPo is up to revisionist history again. The numbers have changed since I looked a couple of days ago. I think they were 21-9 and now they are 55-14 so the stat is less bad than it was 4 days ago but it is still bad. The reason behind the disproportional number of white to black deaths is because even though blacks represent a much smaller demographic group, they are much more likely to end up in an encounter with law enforcement. If you take that stat into account (I can't find the reference at the moment), you actually end up with proportionally MORE whites being killed than blacks.

Blacks are simply not targeted by the police. We have all this rage about "black lives matter" being pushed by the media and a radical group which is currently terrorizing residents of the Capitol Hill section of Seattle (I think the number of complaints from the occupied folks is close to 20,000 but no one cares about their rights especially Seattle's mayor) but we have no rage about the black people that were killed as a result of the riots or who lost their life's work when their business or property was destroyed by the mob. Why do these black lives not matter? Why are we only concerned for blacks who are killed by the police? Why do we ASSUME that all these incidents are the result of racism? If a white cop killing a black man is racist, why is a black cop killing a white man NOT racist? Someone needs to infuse a little sanity into this "discussion" and the author of the clip Jon posted is the voice of sanity and my friends, who are also not victims agree with him.

 

[Isaac]

Here is something I can 110% get on board with and I applaud. Nobody knows how it will work out exactly, but as a place to put our focus, rather than either defunding or demonizing the police. I like it a lot

Albuquerque to send unarmed social workers, not police officers, to some 911 calls

Hours before Albuquerque police officers detained members of an armed civilian group when a protest erupted in gunfire Monday, the mayor of New Mexico’s capital city made an announcement that unarmed social workers – not officers – would now respond to certain 911 calls.

www.foxnews.com

 

[moke123]

What Research Says About Race and Police Shootings

Two new studies have revived the long-running debate over how police respond to white criminal suspects versus African Americans.

www.citylab.com

@Moke, I'm not sure where you got those statistics.

If you look at the stats, it is the rate, not number of. Those are the stats that WaPo uses.

 

[Pat Hartman]

are the stats for unarmed victims or all victims? If they are for all victims then the WaPo is being deliberately deceptive. Those of us who work with software KNOW how statistics can be accurate but intended to give the wrong impression when their basis is not disclosed. Just look at the abortion statistics which seem to indicate that blacks and whites abort at approximately the same percentage. Once you realize that whites outnumber blacks 6-1, the "equal" rate becomes horrifying. Looks like Margaret Sanger got her wish.

 

[isladogs]

More than twice as many whites as blacks are killed by police. Once you understand that there are six times as many whites as blacks in the country, you can see how awful that kill rate is.

Just taking those two sentences on their own and 'accepting' the proportionate numbers you gave, that makes the proportion of black people killed by police three times greater than for white people. Is that the awful kill rate point you were making?

There are many points in your posts that i may respond to later but I found some of your comments unclear and contradictory,
I think you are trying to state that the proportion of whites killed by the police outnumber the number of blacks … provided you filter the data in a certain way. Is that the intention of your argument?

 

[Jon]

I think the whole police brutality thing is missing the big picture. If Black Lives Matter, then spend most of your focus and energy on where it will make the biggest difference. And that is black on black homicide. I believe that 95% of homicides in the black community are from other blacks, and mostly black men in the 18-30 age range. Haven't got time to check that stat but believe it to be true.

So, stop rioting about police brutality and start rioting about how you are killing one another. It reminds me of something Jesus said. No, I'm not religious, but I do remember bits! Before you criticise someone about the splinter in their eye, take the log out of your own eye first. This is similar. Stop complaining about something small, and start complaining about something big! It is a matter of priorities. If you spend your time campaigning about the 5%, while ignoring the 95%, you are getting a poor ROI on your efforts.

Or is this idea of focusing on priorities off-base? I am interested in what the BLM people say about this issue of black on black homicide.

 

[isladogs]

I think the whole police brutality thing is missing the big picture. If Black Lives Matter, then spend most of your focus and energy on where it will make the biggest difference. And that is black on black homicide. I believe that 95% of homicides in the black community are from other blacks, and mostly black men in the 18-30 age range. Haven't got time to check that stat but believe it to be true.

So, stop rioting about police brutality and start rioting about how you are killing one another. It reminds me of something Jesus said. No, I'm not religious, but I do remember bits! Before you criticise someone about the splinter in their eye, take the log out of your own eye first. This is similar. Stop complaining about something small, and start complaining about something big! It is a matter of priorities. If you spend your time campaigning about the 5%, while ignoring the 95%, you are getting a poor ROI on your efforts.

Or is this idea of focusing on priorities off-base? I am interested in what the BLM people say about this issue of black on black homicide.

Yes I believe that this is off-base.
Police brutality is not something small. Nor is serious crime including homicides within the black community.
Both issues you raise are important and need prioritising in different ways.

 

[Steve R.]

Police brutality is only one side of the equation. Unfortunately, that is the side that receives all the outrage. What about the other side?
The brutality of some citizens towards the police. Additionally, as @Jon plus others have stated; Blacks need to stop killing Blacks. Blacks need to examine their own actions.

As I have been listening to the news, the Ferguson effect has been brought up. Basically, it holds that the police will be unwilling to respond to many incidents because of the belief that if anything goes wrong during an altercation that they (police) will be crucified by the court of public opinion. Whether it is true or not, is not known; but it is certainly plausible. Consequently, the police might not respond and crime will "skyrocket". So how will those vehemently condemning the police today react when (future) crime does go up?

PS: How many police departments will be able to recruit good police officers given the fact that there are segments of society actively looking to charging police officers for the slightest indiscretion by the police officer. Would good people even apply for such a job?

 

[Jon]

We all know there is limited time and resources. Given that, you need to allocate it efficiently to maximise your return. It is easy to say "tackle everything", but then you have the practical issue of allocating resources. Do you want to split them 50:50, or in accordance with the size of each issue? If you spend most of the energy on police brutality, and little of it on the biggest cause of black homicide, then you will save less lives.

Just looking at some data, it says that in 2019, 235 blacks were killed by cops. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

I cannot find the data for 2019, so the next best is from 2016. Out of 2,870 black homicides, 2,570 were black offenders. Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

So lets break that down. I will use 2016 and 2019 figures as though they are the same year, just to get an idea.

Black on black homicides = 2570/2870 = 90%

Police on black fatal shootings = 235/2870 = 8%

Worldwide riots for the 8%, silence for the 90%. Of that 8%, only a percentage of those deaths will be from police brutality. So if you look at the big picture, it is relatively small. If you want to argue that police brutality is not something small in absolute terms, then the 10x - 20x of black on black homicide, by your own argument, will be considered massive. Yet you feel that it is off-base to allocate a proportionate amount of energy and focus on a massive problem. Everything is back to front. Nearly all the energy and outrage is focusing on the small part, with whatever is left over for the massive part.

How do you rationalise that?