Could a black person get away with this?

[brycejones]

When the only responses anyone can give me back are "you da white supremacist"

For someone who claims to love facts you keep denying this one Your posting history here proves it is true. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

 

[HumblePie]

Yet just like cars and unlike volcano's everyone is around police. They are in every city and town and do tasks that affect all the people. The average person likely sees police people regularly, I bet in small towns they even interact on a regular basis as they say hello or wave at them as they drive by (none of which are recorded in any of the statistics your referencing). You actually have a great example here, because what your trying to do with your police interactions is like saying you can only die in a car if you get into an accident, so we should only use a per accident rate statistics to talk about people dying in a car. Many people go their whole lives without getting into an accident so it really is very similar to what your talking about. Yet there you think the per capita statistic is very valid for cars, why is that?

No, everyone is not around police. That is the point. 1000 deaths every year from police involved killings. Anywhere from 91-95% of those were a person that was involved with a violent crime and was armed. The vast majority of the general population is NEVER in that situation. The fact you want to use stats of the general populace that will never been in that situation shows how political you want these stats to be.

Look at the list of areas with police shooting.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/54ecf211e4b0ed744420c5b6/1450702902618-9UZJJ7LAD0DBV3GURWPT/?format=1000w&content-type=image%2Fjpeg

Basically anything outside those areas there are no police involved killings. Zero. Zilch. The chance for one over decades of data have show you have a higher percentage of winning the power ball. Using those areas of the US to make a statistic out of is just stupid. Again you don't check for the chance of a person falling into a volcano in Kansas. I mean I guess a volcano can spring up anywhere, but I would bet everything I own it won't happen in my life time. That was the point I was making.

As far as cars, yes, many go their whole lives without a car accident. They are still being exposed to the danger of a car accident out of their control as long as they are on the road. Mechanical failures, weather anomalies, and other bad drives can all cause a car accident at any time to anyone and anywhere on the road. Some people get lucky. That is just random luck in the statistics. It isn't someone you can calculate for.

What I can calculate for is that if you live in Montana the chances of being shot by a police officer is zero. Has been for a long time. Clumping that state with Illinois is just stupid. It provides no value. By value, the whole point to statistical analysis like this is to find strong correlations to a problem to attempt to come up with solutions to problems. Using a large general population per capita stat doesn't do that at all. Doesn't show or provide in correlation. Can't even really be used as a starting stat for a deeper analysis dive. It is literally a political scoring point at worst. It makes sheeps believe in a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[JEDIYoda]

No, everyone is not around police. That is the point. 1000 deaths every year from police involved killings. Anywhere from 91-95% of those were a person that was involved with a violent crime and was armed. The vast majority of the general population is NEVER in that situation. The fact you want to use stats of the general populace that will never been in that situation shows how political you want these stats to be.

Look at the list of areas with police shooting.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/54ecf211e4b0ed744420c5b6/1450702902618-9UZJJ7LAD0DBV3GURWPT/?format=1000w&content-type=image%2Fjpeg

Basically anything outside those areas there are no police involved killings. Zero. Zilch. The chance for one over decades of data have show you have a higher percentage of winning the power ball. Using those areas of the US to make a statistic out of is just stupid. Again you don't check for the chance of a person falling into a volcano in Kansas. I mean I guess a volcano can spring up anywhere, but I would bet everything I own it won't happen in my life time. That was the point I was making.

As far as cars, yes, many go their whole lives without a car accident. They are still being exposed to the danger of a car accident out of their control as long as they are on the road. Mechanical failures, weather anomalies, and other bad drives can all cause a car accident at any time to anyone and anywhere on the road. Some people get lucky. That is just random luck in the statistics. It isn't someone you can calculate for.

What I can calculate for is that if you live in Montana the chances of being shot by a police officer is zero. Has been for a long time. Clumping that state with Illinois is just stupid. It provides no value. By value, the whole point to statistical analysis like this is to find strong correlations to a problem to attempt to come up with solutions to problems. Using a large general population per capita stat doesn't do that at all. Doesn't show or provide in correlation. Can't even really be used as a starting stat for a deeper analysis dive. It is literally a political scoring point at worst. It makes sheeps believe in a problem that doesn't exist.

No your real point ia don`t be black and you have nothing to worry about?
Don`t do anything wrong and regardless of color you have nothing to worry about?
Or the point you are really trying to make is there really is no systemic racism among cops??
The problem with dealing with you is the sources you use without reading them and when you do post something usually you conveniently leave out the part that debunks your argument.......you see how that goes!
When you post the words -- GOOD FAITH -- do not apply to you!
Yet even when debunked you double down --
I do admire the way you double down, even when presented with over whelming facts against you.....

 

[Meghan54]

No, everyone is not around police. That is the point. 1000 deaths every year from police involved killings. Anywhere from 91-95% of those were a person that was involved with a violent crime and was armed. The vast majority of the general population is NEVER in that situation. The fact you want to use stats of the general populace that will never been in that situation shows how political you want these stats to be.

Look at the list of areas with police shooting.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/54ecf211e4b0ed744420c5b6/1450702902618-9UZJJ7LAD0DBV3GURWPT/?format=1000w&content-type=image%2Fjpeg

Basically anything outside those areas there are no police involved killings. Zero. Zilch. The chance for one over decades of data have show you have a higher percentage of winning the power ball. Using those areas of the US to make a statistic out of is just stupid. Again you don't check for the chance of a person falling into a volcano in Kansas. I mean I guess a volcano can spring up anywhere, but I would bet everything I own it won't happen in my life time. That was the point I was making.

As far as cars, yes, many go their whole lives without a car accident. They are still being exposed to the danger of a car accident out of their control as long as they are on the road. Mechanical failures, weather anomalies, and other bad drives can all cause a car accident at any time to anyone and anywhere on the road. Some people get lucky. That is just random luck in the statistics. It isn't someone you can calculate for.

What I can calculate for is that if you live in Montana the chances of being shot by a police officer is zero. Has been for a long time. Clumping that state with Illinois is just stupid. It provides no value. By value, the whole point to statistical analysis like this is to find strong correlations to a problem to attempt to come up with solutions to problems. Using a large general population per capita stat doesn't do that at all. Doesn't show or provide in correlation. Can't even really be used as a starting stat for a deeper analysis dive. It is literally a political scoring point at worst. It makes sheeps believe in a problem that doesn't exist.

Damn....that's some mighty fine stupid on display. Congrats!

 

[zinfamous]

Literally NO you dipshit. You are literally missing the point of my argument in the first place. The point of my ENTIRE GODDAMN ARGUMENT is that a general fucking per capita comparison across the entire population segment to prove that cops are more likely to kill black people is FLAT OUT FUCKING WRONG. That the moment you start to control for ANYTHING like encounter rates the fucking comparison flips and stays flipped. I don't give a SHIT how many control variables you are trying to control for at that point. It doesn't fucking matter.

I am not arguing why blacks commit more violent crimes you literal inbred fucking dipshit. I am arguing that it is absolutely stupidly asinine in-fucking-sane to use a general per capita comparison as an argument to prove racism in police involved killings. If you are trying to fucking strawman me any fucking more on this after I have made my self overtly clear on this point you are a fucking retarded buffoon.

The best part about your brainless, uninformed, dogshit ranting here is how I actually explained why per capita comparisons don't work here, but also why your attempt to compare volcanoes, which have zero agency, are not the example that you should be trying to set against humans, with very clear agency and very real control over their actions and within which populations they interact with. It is the fact that you are flat out ignoring the reason that per capita comparisons don't work (Again: due to disproportionate encounter rates that reject per capita comparisons), and you wish to handwave away this factor as literally a natural law, like volcanoes and lightning, as if it is simply natural law that black people encounter police at vastly higher rates than other demographics.

To you, disproportionate encounter rates don't matter--it's natural, so let's ignore that there could be any reason behind this, because it's bad for you.

You couldn't be dumber if a fucking hammer store fell on you.

 

[Jaskalas]

Deaths per police interaction is a useful statistic for determining how dangerous a given police encounter is for a person - broken down by race.

And breaking any and all of this down by race is a useless and hatefully divisive effort to begin with. Police are dangerous to interact with. Full stop. People are killed. We need to resolve that core issue, not start a race war.

 

[ivwshane]

Deaths per police interaction is a useful statistic for determining how dangerous a given police encounter is for a person - broken down by race.

And breaking any and all of this down by race is a useless and hatefully divisive effort to begin with. Police are dangerous to interact with. Full stop. People are killed. We need to resolve that core issue, not start a race war.

No it’s not useless, it’s a reality that race very much plays into policing. The fact that you want to sweep it under the rug means you don’t get the issue. Black lives taken by police is one symptom of a much larger issue.

Policing, in general, is a separate issue that also needs to be dealt with. Although both issues may be related, they are not the same.