Blue Lives Matter, Black Lies Shatter. Cops 1850% More Killed by Blacks Than Kill Blacks.

But I want to know one thing: How is voter ID "racist" in "some cases" as you claim?

 

Self-hate is what you took from Rev. Jackson's comment? That's very interesting. What I took from it was his expression of sadness and frustration at the state of black culture in America. That even a black man raised in a rough black neighborhood feels more comfortable around white people. That speaks volumes. Sadly, after he made those comments he continued to push the same failed policies that led the conditions he laments.

 

Please. Reread my post. It says ZILCH about "reasons for killing", ZILCH about "factors after the crime", etc. etc.

I am talking about statistical conclusions - i.e. data analysis. Data analysis does not, nor should it, involve opinions. It is a PRECURSOR to pondering why the stats are what they are (reasons, etc). Which is why - which is the actual point of my post - it is essential to first look at the data in it's entirety, not just one or two data points, as in the OP. This is what "not arbitrary" means - the OP article author's decision to restrict their analysis to two data points was not arbitrary. It was deliberate - cherry-picking to find data that matched preconceived opinions.

 

What is the number for whites?

 

Yes, self-hate and that he has bought into ignorant racist stereotypes.

 

Please point me to the White Lives Matter website where they proffer flat lies about policing and the killing of White people due to systemic racism and we can start a conversation in a new thread.

 

Black people are responsible for 26.6% of all crime.

 

Cops fight criminals, that's the reason why they live in constant danger of being killed.

On the other hand, crime has nothing to do with skin color. Perhaps superficially, but race is never the real reason why someone becomes a criminal.

 

White people are responsible for 69.4% of all crime.

 

Most people killed by US police officers were white:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

 

The you need to "enlighten" the rest of us, by telling us what you think that data should tell us. That will be interesting, I'm sure.

I've looked over far more such data than what I posted, so I know the depth of the problem the posted graph shows is reflected across the board in regards to black crime. I've looked at the relationships of things they rant about as racist police- AND the facts that show that the only thing out of order there are random, scattered events, and not many of them. Then I've looked at the statistics of how blacks attack police.... and I see a very obvious consistency over the last few years, and farther back. Double standard. I'm justified in doing crime, it's unjust to call me out for it. Convenient, but BS.

I don't "wonder" why the stats are what they are- I'm quite sure. People made choices, reacting and being driven by emotion and discarding character, if they had any- and generally told themselves their violence was acceptable. The people thinking they are righteous do-gooders and feel sorry for criminals have endorsed that. The criminals lack the self-discipline to do better- and the lack the community environment that would require them and teach to do better. There's a culture here that tolerates this conduct without sufficient consequences, both legally and within their community. Rubber rules- so there are no rules. It's true to some degree everywhere- it's just excessively so in the black community, and only the black community can change black culture.

But of course... you have a different view. Wonder if you can actually state it and support it.

 

Factually correct. Now, tell us why they live in constant danger and why they are authorized to give lawful commands to citizens in the performance of their duties and to back up those command with force -- up to and including lethal force. Then tell us why it is so critical for citizens to comply wit those lawful commands, and what can happen when they don't.

Not only off-topic, I never made any argument even remotely suggesting this pablum.

 

Try putting a White Lives Matter bumper sticker on your car.

 

Do you have a citation? Thank you.

 

It's the gist of your racist statement here: most blacks are criminals!
May I ask you if you're a white guy?

 

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY APPROACHING THAT PAP. Do not put words in my mouth. Respond the the actual words I wrote, not what you imagine you want me to be arguing so you can proffer your pathetic straw men instead of factual arguments.

Fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem: I am not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your "argument."

 

Do you have a citation? Thank you.

 

what would be the point?

are cops routinely abusing and killing unarmed white people?

are white people routinely falsely accused of criminal activity?

 

You need to follow the whole conversation.

 

Again, I am not talking about what the data should say. I am talking about false impressions of what it does say - of it's own accord - that are created (as in the OP) by failing to look at the entirety of the data, context etc. included. This occurs when people, as with the OP article author, cherry-pick data to support a PRECONCEIVED opinion. Which is entirely backwards. Opinions should come AFTER analysis, not before.

To illustrate this, I have posted several examples of additional statistical findings, involving no opinion whatsoever, that can be derived from the exact same data if looked at in full - findings that are utterly ignored by those who, like the OP article author, bring preconceived opinions to the data and are therefore only interested in data points which confirm their opinion, and not the whole statistical picture. Whether or not my examples tend to support one view or another is irrelevant. They are mathematical calculations and their purpose is purely to illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of this methodology. Why? Because people are swallowing up these self-serving analyses without questioning the extent to which they may or may not be reflective of the big picture.

For the sake of simplicity, in the hopes that you'll finally get it, I'll give just two examples.

• The OP article author states that police are 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black person than vice versa. This is correct.
• The same data shows that a white person is 1.5 times more likely to kill a police officer than a black person is.

The fact that most of the additional calculations that could be made contradict the impression fomented by the OP article is purely incidental. The fact that they are all completely ignored does, however, speak volumes about the author's intent.

In short, my point is that an honest analysis does not choose between the above statistics.

 

FBI UCR crime statistics 2019.

 

That's a block of text, not a citation. This is the internet age: Please provide a link to the page on which have obtained the data that supports your claims. Thank you.

 

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=fbi+ucr+crime+statistics+2019

 

PS citations ARE written blocks of text.

 

I understand what you are saying. Not sure you have quite met your own concept. While I haven't gone back and crunched that part-

If one does not look at the data as it relates to the population share, then it does get skewed. To be relevant to a group, the relative size of that group to comparative numbers must be considered. Give the fact that non-whites outnumber blacks almost eight to one, the base numbers to not directly compare.

If we had a chart saying white people killed 10 policemen and black people 5- that at first sounds like white people are more dangerous. When you factor in population numbers, what its saying is that a group 8 times larger killed twice as many- not 8 times as many, which would be the equivalent. When you calculate that back to the per-person level, it says the reverse of what the simple numbers might seem to say.

I'm aware of that, and I've always done that.

Tell us how you arrive at a different picture than I have.