Cite? Or is this just more innumeracy? OP’s source was very clear: 21x.
Whether true or not, the ends don’t justify the means. Jailing all black people would lower crime – that doesn’t mean we should do it.
Its in the study, the 95% confidence interval is 10 to 40.
Yep. 95% confidence that the ratio of young black males killed by police is probably a lot greater than the ratio of young black males committing crimes.
Then I don’t think you know what the word means.
You didn’t read the OP’s cite then, did you?
The difference between 9 and 10 is not “a lot greater”.
If it’s 95% likely to be between 10 and 40, then it’s still most likely by far that this ratio is far greater (and thus extremely disproportionate) than the ratio for criminal behavior. Considering that it’s the best data we have so far, and that police forces would have every motivation to release the data that they’ve hoarded if it exculpated them from these accusations, I think it’s still reasonable to hold their feet to the fire.
If it really were 21, or really were 40, would you still think the police and/or police culture were blameless?
The difference between 9 and ‘somewhere between 10 and 40, with the highest likelihood of 21’ is most likely a lot greater.
In other words … You got nothin’. (Yes, I did read the cite, and even found the pdf it referenced. You read, but without understanding.)
Then you know that “21x” is not in any way a solid number.
I am asking you to prove what you said.
Your claim that you did not say
is untrue.
If you are going to deny having said what you said, then it is clear that it will not be possible to have a debate with you in good faith.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
However, the majority of those murders tend to be gang-on-gang murders that do not, in and of themselves, pose a threat to policemen.
[/QUOTE]
Please produce a cite showing that those who commit gang-on-gang murders assault or kill policemen at a rate no higher than the general public.
Regards,
Shodan
In light of the facts posted in this thread and plenty of news threads I know you’ve posted in, this last statement is laughable. We’ve established that black people are far more likely than white people to be searched, arrested, incarcerated, and stay in jail longer with all the legal and personal consequences that carries. The drug war, which I think most of us agree at this point is This thread is about the statistics that show young black men are more likely than young white men to be shot to death by police. I’ve also posted some data indicating that our society simply judges black kids more harshly; they’re seen as older and more responsible for their actions than white kids the same age. That’s without getting into other issues like poverty or access to voting. So… yeah, there’s still some terrible stuff going on. Sorry!
Which is to say ‘don’t you think it’s OK for the police to be racist based on very general crime stats which are themselves affected by selective policing?’ Uh. No.
Again: no, you cannot use these statistics that way because that’s not what they tell you, and they do not give you any useful information about individual circumstances. Assuming that a person is more likely to be violent based on race only means that people of that race are more likely to get injured or dead.
So police in all areas - high crime, low crime, racially mixed, racially segregated - ought to respond the same way based on broad national crime statistics? The stupidity of this ought to be obvious.
“Gangsta murderer?” That’s totally a thing. See, kids, Terr knows about your slang and your rippity-rap music. He knows what’s happening on the street today.
I made no claims about the sales of individual albums or disproportionate sales to one group or another. You added those on your own. I suspect you’re asking for data you knew isn’t available, which means it has little value. I posted what data there is: the broader population, the most solid racial estimates for album sales that there are, and data that shows younger people are the heaviest music consumers. My statement was a little overgeneralized, but the basics are obvious. And again, even if you don’t take the statement at face value, Toastmaster was engaging in the laziest possible stereotyping. You should be able to see that.
You’re saying you can’t debate me in good faith while falsely attributing claims to me in the same exact sentence. The irony would astound, except, well…
You posted this -
Now you are claiming you didn’t.
shrugs
What are you even arguing against? I posted cites for the claim I made, and you can read those if you care about the matter in the first place (I don’t think you do). I did not make claims about proportional sales of specific albums, which you also demanded I cite for reasons unknown to anyone except you. If you find this tangent so uninteresting or distracting, by all means give up. It’s not like anyone else is demanding more information about the role of hip hop in this issue. And hey - the cites I posted don’t 100% prove what I said, since they’re good evidence for the race and age part, but not the suburb part - but they’re better than the absolutely no cites Toastmaster posted when he was lazily stereotyping people based on superficial criteria (a theme that has popped up a bunch of times in this thread.) And you haven’t posted any cites that contradict me either, of course. So if you want to make some kind of argument that this has something to do with music, try making an actual argument and dig up some cites. That should be good for a laugh. If not, I’m happy to be done with this nonsense.
You can instruct cops not to shoot black people who aren’t behaving in a way that poses imminent deadly threat.
But if a black person *does *act in a way that poses imminent deadly threat, then no cop would avoid the use of force just to reduce a 21x statistical ratio.
Nobody said they would. Again, I have no idea who you’re arguing with.
[sarcasm]Are you sure? Don’t go so far out on a limb, here! Do we really want these brave men and women not shooting black people who don’t pose an imminent threat?[/sarcasm]