View Single Post
Old 10-22-2018, 07:33 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It was 2014, not 2005.
Sorry, I knew that. I meant to say 2014 (maybe 2015?) BLM wasn't even a ting in 2005. I don't know what happened.

The data is extremely deficient -- most police departments don't report on who they kill and their demographic data. These studies have to rely on the limited data that's out there -- and a couple of studies that conflict with another study, all based on a few limited sets of data, can't possibly be relied on to make anything close to a final conclusion on such a challenging issue. It's all potentially useful data, but it paints, at best, a very incomplete picture. No final conclusion can be made without much, much more data, and accompanying studies of that data.
I see, so the thousands of cops killing in the database are insufficient to draw any conclusions but you think that we really ought to consider the pro-publia report that cops kill black men 21 times more frequently based on 54 killings?

You started this subthread with the statement that:

I've referenced statistics that dispute your 3x number -- specifically, the Pro Publica report (linked multiple times -- I can find it again if someone needs it) that found that young black men were 21 times more likely to be shot by police than young white men,
There is no dispute about the 3X number. EVERYONE agrees that black men are killed by cops at 3X the rate of white men. Pro-Publica carved out a subset of the data where they found that cops killed black men at 21X the rate of white men. I could use the same technique to say that cops killed old white men infinitely more frequently than old black men. Or that they killed pre-pubscent Asian boys 3 times more frequently than pre-pubscent white boys.

There is no conflict between studies. There is a conflict between Pro-Publica's calculation based on a small set of cherry-picked numbers and 2 actual peer reviewed studies.

This is not a "teach the controversy" moment. This is a "hey wait a minute, maybe we ought to revisit the assumption that cops are killing black men like people have been telling us" moment.

How open are you to the notion that cops are NOT killing black men at higher rates than white men? I am pretty sure that I am open to the notion that cops are killing black men at higher rates because this is exactly what I believed before these studies came out. But, when the facts changed, I changed my mind. Why didn't you?

Why were you able to reach the conclusion that cops killed black me more frequently on imperfect information but now need so much more certainty before you will discard the conclusion that cops disproportionately kill blacks based on what you now consider flawed incomplete data?

Did you always consider the data flawed and unreliable or did it suddenly become flawed and unreliable when the pier reviewed studies were published?