This sort of comparison is unacceptable. For one thing, "committing a crime" is insufficent justification for onsite execution by a police officer. For another thing, the table you linked is arrests -- not convictions, not even charges filed.
You have, in other words constructed exactly the sort of thinly-supported narrative that you complained about in your opening salvo. We do live in 2020 and racism -- not "race" -- is in fact a problem, no matter what you'd like to imagine.
Of course class-related analyses are available, but I'm not sure how much value there is to be had in continuing to engage on this topic before you take an opportunity to consider deeply what conclusions you are comfortable accepting and which ones you are merely interested in rendering less "surprising."
I apologize if this comment comes across as hostile; I find your assessment here to be highly offensive. It's one thing to attempt to maintain objectivity; it's another to speak with such detachment and lack of self-awareness as to make it extremely difficult to accept your text at face value.
Your comment is exactly why I find these topics difficult - responses come back disproportionally emotional and as you put it "hostile" in relation to (what I believe to be) a pretty neutral comment.
For one - I believe there is never sufficient justification for "onsite execution". I don't see how looking at convictions vs. arrests changes anything about that? We could compare it to convictions if you'd like - the gap might be even larger I believe.
My main point was that I hypothesise most of these issues are in fact due to income inequality more than anything else. It's still a huge issue - but a whole other issue - why that income inequality gap might be larger within the black population in the US.
Crime rate vs. number of persons killed is something that I find a lot more comfortable accepting then just blindly comparing the relations to the total population. It would be just as easy for me to question your detachment from reality or the lack of self-awareness.
The entire point is "in disproportionately higher numbers" related to what? Just the entire population or their ratio in the total number or cases?
If you believe the number of convictions makes a difference there - you're welcome to counter it with some numbers of your own.
I do believe the percentage of arrests is the right number to compare it to here - as police violence happens exactly when the arrests are made. I do acknowledge that I used the wrong word "committed" where I could have written "arrested" - but here its just semantics and changes absolutely nothing.
Why would I have "an interest in being neutral about ending human lives" - really dude? Beautiful stuff really.
The comparison might be emotional unacceptable at a time like this, but I think its worth using all that studies that exist on human violence in order to understand human behavior.
Predicts markers in this topic, ie traits of people that allow someone looking at a set of data to make a prediction about who end up killed by the police and who doesn't, would not list racism at the top. If I attempt an simplified meta analyze on the research, I would list at the top gender which the human brain determine at an exceptional speed. Second are social economic status symbols and signals. After that and in third place I would place in-group association with either minority or majority groups, ie the result of racism, homophobia, xenophobia and so on.
Prediction models don't have a narratives. You get a set of data and after that you should be able to make risk profiles that match future data sets. If given 1000 people in a given area, a prediction model would pull out risk profiles of who are more likely to end up being killed by the police. Statistically over time the risk profiles would then match the outcomes. Those with lowest risk profile of getting shot by the police would, if we follow the above ordering: female, high status, and part of a majority group. Highest risk would be male, low status, and part of a minority group.
What we want to do with such model is a separate issue, including if we want to apply it to the current events. I would note that gender, social economic status and in-group association all effects how the brain perceive threats and get amplified in threatening situations.
> For one thing, "committing a crime" is insufficent justification for onsite execution by a police officer. For another thing, the table you linked is arrests -- not convictions, not even charges filed.
I believe police killings are caused by racial and inequality factors, but I can't tell to what extent.
What do you think? How have you concluded that, taking into account confounding factors?
> This sort of comparison is unacceptable. For one thing, "committing a crime" is insufficent justification for onsite execution by a police officer.
Nobody said it is. Every police killing is unique and justified or unjustified based on the particular circumstances.
> For another thing, the table you linked is arrests -- not convictions, not even charges filed.
Suppose you are about to arrest someone who presumably committed a homicide that carries a severe sentence, are you going to take any chances? Suppose you were to be arrested for that crime, are you not likely to use any means necessary to avoid getting arrested? Under these circumstances, the chances of a lethal altercation rise dramatically.
Therefore, whichever population cohort commits more homicides is going to skew its share of police killings upwards. African-Americans accounted for 52% of homicide convictions:
You have, in other words constructed exactly the sort of thinly-supported narrative that you complained about in your opening salvo. We do live in 2020 and racism -- not "race" -- is in fact a problem, no matter what you'd like to imagine.
Of course class-related analyses are available, but I'm not sure how much value there is to be had in continuing to engage on this topic before you take an opportunity to consider deeply what conclusions you are comfortable accepting and which ones you are merely interested in rendering less "surprising."
I apologize if this comment comes across as hostile; I find your assessment here to be highly offensive. It's one thing to attempt to maintain objectivity; it's another to speak with such detachment and lack of self-awareness as to make it extremely difficult to accept your text at face value.