It does. And the answer is either (a) “No, they’re not more likely to be arresting black men,” in which case, that’s pretty damming evidence against the police for shooting and killing them so much more often than they ought to just going by proportions, or (b), “Yes, they are more likely to be arresting black men.” In which case we go down this rabbit hole:
Q: “Why are the police more likely to be arresting black men?”
A: “Because that’s where all the crime is!”
Q: “How do we know that’s where all the crime is?”
A: “Because that’s where all the arrests are being made!”
And then it becomes wickedly circular. The failure to really follow that rabbit hole–to just stop at “Because that’s where all the crime is!”–is where and why scientific racism isn’t really scientific. Scientific racism never survives more than a surface-deep intrusion into the underlying “facts.” The more people like dumberassie try and use “statistics” to make their point, the more they demonstrate they don’t understand statistics. As evidenced by not grasping the importance of, if one means to specify a median, actually calling it a median, as opposed to an average, because anyone who actually “gets” statistics would understand that (1) absent context, average is generally taken to be referring to a mean, and (2) there is a more than trivial difference between mean and median, particularly when discussing what elite colleges and law schools report as part of their rankings.
But, again, scientific racists can’t think that far ahead. They just grab whatever numbers they see that they think will support their case, and then plaster them on the page without really understanding what those numbers might actually say if one bothered to look into them.
And, again, if dumbasserie wants to be educated on the subject, I’d be happy to to help if he just acknowledges and posts in his own pit thread, which is where he belongs.
And of course he’s another dumbass probably-sock who couldn’t remember which throwaway e-mail address he used to setup the account.