That 6 to 9 (not 14 – again, the 14 was completely made up – just from some guy’s blog post, with nothing supportable) necessarily includes any contact with police. They aren’t 6 to 9 times more likely to be violent with regular people, but even more likely to be violent with police, unless you have statistics that show that black people are more likely to be violent with police than with non-police.
This methodology is not sound. If you believe that young black men are relatively more violent towards police than towards non-police, then show some statisitics. Show the assault and/or murder rate of young black men towards police compared to young white men, and the assault/murder rate of young black men towards everyone else (or everyone in general) compared to young white men (which we know is 6 to 9 times total).
Young black men are 6 to 9 times as likely to be involved in violent crime than young white men. You have shown zero data that suggests that their rate of violent crime against police is any higher.
Steophan – quit with the condescending “you don’t understand statistics” crap. It’s just being a jerk for no reason.
I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. I think you’re saying that you believe that the rate of violence towards police for young black men is twice as high (or more) as the rate of violence towards everyone else. You believe that young black men are 6 to 9 times more likely to be violent towards everyone than young white men, but this ratio is even higher for violence towards police. Correct?
If this is what you’re saying, then I don’t believe you’ve shown any statistics that demonstrate that young black men are statistically more violent towards police than they are towards everyone else.
I rather doubt the prison population of the States as a whole are the best examples of fatherhood. I don’t believe these “parents” will be playing happy families if they were outside the prison population. I cannot say there are no bad consequences for children if their fathers are imprisoned, but I think these cases are probably a minority.
When a kid has personal experiences on top of the statistics that suggest that the justice system and society in general is more likely to treat them unfairly because of their race, that’s going to have some affect on their likelihood of being involved with criminal activity.
If you grow up with a legitimate belief that playing by the rules may not work, then you are going to be less likely to play by the rules.
What I’ve shown is that the expected rate of violent encounters between the police and young black men is 12-28 times that of the population as a whole. Do you know what “expected” means in a statistical context? You are the one who presented data that showed a 21 times greater rate of a certain kind of violent conflict. I am merely showing that that data is explicable without needing to assume racism, or anti-cop feelings, or anything other than ordinary behaviour by the police and by young black men.
Unless you dispute that young black me come into contact with the police more often than other groups - which would make all of your arguments in many other threads invalid - or than all violent crime by young black men is against the police, then my arguments are solid. If you care to provide data on the relative rates of the police stopping young black men compared to the population, or of the percentage of violent crime committed by young black men against the police, I’ll try to figure them into the argument. I’m currently assuming “twice as often” for the first, and “an insignificant amount” for the second - that is, that a young black man inclined to violence is no more or less likely to attack a police officer than any other target.
Oh, and your claim that the 14x figure is invented is outright false. You don’t get to pick just the lowest from a range of options just to bolster your argument.
Why would we need an “expected” rate? It shouldn’t be that hard to find the actual data. Find the stats on young black men and young white men for violence towards police.
It might be explicable. But you haven’t shown that it is. If you believe that young black men have a higher relative rate of violence towards police than 6 to 9 times as compared to young white men, then show the data.
No. I am asserting that the only data we have on young black men and violence is from the crime statistics – that young black men are 6 to 9 times more likely statistically to be involved in violent crime than young white men. This includes violence against cops and everyone else. If you believe this ratio is higher for violence against cops, then show some data. For all we know, young black men could be 15 times more likely to be violent against civilians, statistically, but only 3 times more likely to be violent against cops, statistically. Or the reverse. You’ve presented no data that suggests that young black men are statistically a higher danger to police than to non-police.
No, it’s just unsupported. It’s a “some guy on a blog post says” number. The 6 and 9 numbers come from government crime statistics. Crime statistics as compared to “some blog post with no reference”.
Right. I’m talking about the effects that disparities in treatment could have on whether the children who observe such treatment decide to play by the rules or not.
That particular part of the discussion was whether the disparities in sentencing actually have any effect on society – Fuzzy_wuzzy seemed to be asserting that the only people who are badly affected by black criminals getting longer sentences than white criminals for the same crimes are black criminals, while I’m saying that such unfair sentencing can also have an effect on the rest of society who is aware of such unfairness.
Because that’s the point of statistical analysis. Your claim is that 21 times as many young black men are shot by the police than the population as a whole, and that is a disparate rate. I have shown that, far from being disparate, it’s well within the expected range.
Unless you can come back to me and show you understand what an expected value is, I’m done with this. Your attempted rebuttals are now not even making sense, it’s clear you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s not meant as an attack, just an observation, but I literally can’t keep trying to explain something that you won’t make the effort to learn about.
I’ll put it another way. The 21-times number disturbs me for a number of reasons. The main defense presented by you and others is that this number is justified because young black men present a greater danger to police than young white men. I counter with this: the only data I can find on the “greater danger” is the disparity in violent crime – that young black men are 6 to 9 times as likely to be statistically involved in violent crime than young white men. You’ve suggested that the greater contact between police and young black men suggest that their danger to police is even higher than this 6 to 9 times… but you’ve presented no data to support this. It shouldn’t be that hard to find – compare data for young black men acting violently towards police to young white men acting violently towards police.
It’s not within the expected range. I know what that means, but you’re not applying it properly, because you’re introducing an extra factor without data. If you believe young black men are greater than 6 to 9 times more violent towards police than young white men, then find some data to support this.
It’s 6-14 times, and the data was provided in the other thread. I’ve not claimed, at any point, that young black men are more violent towards the police than that statistic claims. Read my posts, and try to understand them. I believe, based on statistics, some of which you provided, that in any given encounter, a young black man is between 6 and 14 times more likely to be violent than a representative member of the population.
Is that clear? Do you understand it? If so, there are literally no grounds for you to disagree with my analysis - unless you don’t believe that young black men are more likely to come into contact with the police than the general population. Please, clarify this.
Actually, I’m going to add some more to this. What you are confusing is the rate of shootings per encounter - which if it’s proportionate to the rate of violence would be 6-14, with the amount of young black men shot, which is 21x. It’s not that young black men are 21x more likely to be shot per encounter with the police, it’s that they are 21x more likely to be shot over their lifetime. That’s why the number of encounters matters.
I am honestly wracking my brain trying to thing of different ways to explain this.
I found some data on police use of force by race. It doesn’t break it down by age, and it’s a bit old (late 90s to early 00s), but this should at least be a start – and it’s better than nothing.
Look at Table 48 on page 45, for the “subject” columns. Adding up all the numbers, there were 3481 white subjects (perpetrators) involved in police use of force, and 4246 black subjects (perpetrators) involved in police use of force. That’s a 1.22 total ratio for black to white total involvement in police use of force. So in raw numbers, non-adjusted, black people are slightly more likely than white people to be involved in police use of force. We can adjust this by the demographics for the year 2000 – about 6 to 1 white-to-black for total US population in 2000. 6 times 1.22 is about 7.2 – which is right within our 6 to 9 ratio.
So according to this data, black people are no more violent towards the police than they are towards the general population, statistically speaking.
In light of this actual data on police use of force, I think we can move past any talk about “expected” statistics on police use of force. From the only data shown so far, the rate of violence for black people compared to white people towards police (statistically) is no higher than the rate of violence for black people compared to white people towards everyone (again, statistically).
So, from the data presented so far, we know that black people are 6 to 9 times more likely, statistically, to be involved in violent crime than white people. We know that young black men are 21 times more likely, statistically, to be killed by police than young white men.
And we know that black people are no more likely to be involved in police use of force than white people.
Thanks for providing that, I never claimed otherwise. But you’re making the same mistake again. That data doesn’t talk about individuals, it talks about encounters. Theoretically, it could be 4246 individual black people, and one white person going and attacking many cops, vice versa, or anywhere in between.
The data tells you how likely a cop is to be attacked by someone of a particular race, not how likely an individual of a particular race is to have ever attacked a cop. Do you understand the difference?