Please help me understand

[slowG]

Looking from a factual stand point.. Could someone show me a statistic showing that blacks are killed by police more then whites? I just want to be informed. I cant base an opinion off a handful of videos captured of a handful of events that went viral. I have tried to find information but I dont know if the sites are valid.

here is one ive found

5 Statistics You Need To Know About Cops Killing Blacks | Daily Wire

Cops killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks in 2015. According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. The majority of these victims had a gun or "were armed or otherwise threatening the officer with potentially lethal force," according to Mac Donald in a speech at Hillsdale College.
Some may argue that these statistics are evidence of racist treatment toward blacks, since whites consist of 62 percent of the population and blacks make up 13 percent of the population. But as Mac Donald writes in The Wall Street Journal, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.

Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force," writes MacDonald.


MacDonald also pointed out in her Hillsdale speech that blacks "commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime" in New York City, even though they consist of 23 percent of the city's population.
"The black violent crime rate would actually predict that more than 26 percent of police victims would be black," MacDonald said. "Officer use of force will occur where the police interact most often with violent criminals, armed suspects, and those resisting arrest, and that is in black neighborhoods."

 

[MohawkSlim]

Black people are NOT killed more often by police. They're killed at a disproportionate rate.

The big argument in the country right now ("But, but, muh feelings!") is because there are fewer black people that somehow it's more dangerous for them. The facts are there's less than one percent of one percent chance for people (of any color) to be killed by cops but the feels take over and all the sudden things like "most of us live in urban areas where we're more likely to interact with cops" takes a back seat.

If I was you, I'd simply stop arguing with people over dumb stuff like this. They're incapable of taking any "facts" you submit into account because they've already decided "muh feels" are more important. Good luck though, all the same.

 

[slowG]

Sorry thats what I meant to ask. Looking for facts backing up killings at a disproportionate rate

 

[MohawkSlim]

Simply crunch the numbers. Take DOJ/CDC/etc., number of folks killed by police by race and divide by population.

"We make up only 13% of the population yet account for 30% of police shootings. That's racist! Something must be done! Bring in the federal government to protect us from the local government!"

 

[slowG]

In this instance general population is a moot point.

if anyone finds sources showing disproportionate killings based on each race compared their percentage of committing crimes please post it here.

 

[MohawkSlim]

That's a separate issue. (Or so I'm told.)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Black people are NOT killed more often by police. They're killed at a disproportionate rate.

The big argument in the country right now ("But, but, muh feelings!") is because there are fewer black people that somehow it's more dangerous for them. The facts are there's less than one percent of one percent chance for people (of any color) to be killed by cops but the feels take over and all the sudden things like "most of us live in urban areas where we're more likely to interact with cops" takes a back seat.

If I was you, I'd simply stop arguing with people over dumb stuff like this. They're incapable of taking any "facts" you submit into account because they've already decided "muh feels" are more important. Good luck though, all the same.

Actually, that's not the argument. It's that blacks are stopped, frisked, injured, imprisoned at a higher rate for similar crimes, have force employed on them, and I guess killed at a disproportionate rate.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sorry thats what I meant to ask. Looking for facts backing up killings at a disproportionate rate

In the study, researchers wrote that their analysis of the 990 fatal shootings in 2015 “suggests the police exhibit shooter bias by falsely perceiving blacks to be a greater threat than non-blacks to their safety.” Black individuals shot and killed by police were less likely to have been attacking police officers than the white individuals fatally shot by police, the study found.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...94563e-fa74-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

 

[wtburnette]

Actually, that's not the argument. It's that blacks are stopped, frisked, injured, imprisoned at a higher rate for similar crimes, have force employed on them, and I guess killed at a disproportionate rate.

I guess I've never understood that whole concept. I've read that blacks commit more crime. If that's true, then they are going to match the suspects that are being sought more often that any other race and therefore the police would be much more apt to stop them. Just like if the suspects being sought are white, then whites would be stopped for that particular crime and not blacks. Also, if blacks commit more crime, it would seem reasonable that the police would stop more blacks that they thought were acting suspicious. I also wonder if blacks resist at a higher rate than whites or other races? If that were true, then it would make sense that more force would be used against them. Add in bias and preconceptions and it seems like a pretty volatile mix. Perhaps I'm over thinking it? All I know is that my Dad was IPD for 20+ years and I've never felt like I needed to follow in his footsteps. Respect to anyone who can handle such a difficult job

 

[slowG]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...94563e-fa74-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

Did you read it? I skimmed through looking for statistics. Basically it said blacks are unarmed more often then whites in general. Killed or not. Therefore would translate both ways.

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I guess I've never understood that whole concept. I've read that blacks commit more crime. If that's true, then they are going to match the suspects that are being sought more often that any other race and therefore the police would be much more apt to stop them. Just like if the suspects being sought are white, then whites would be stopped for that particular crime and not blacks. Also, if blacks commit more crime, it would seem reasonable that the police would stop more blacks that they thought were acting suspicious. I also wonder if blacks resist at a higher rate than whites or other races? If that were true, then it would make sense that more force would be used against them. Add in bias and preconceptions and it seems like a pretty volatile mix. Perhaps I'm over thinking it? All I know is that my Dad was IPD for 20+ years and I've never felt like I needed to follow in his footsteps. Respect to anyone who can handle such a difficult job

That's actually incorrect, proportionately more, but in pure numbers certainly not.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Did you read it? I skimmed through looking for statistics. Basically it said blacks are unarmed more often then whites in general. Killed or not. Therefore would translate both ways.

How do you translate "Black individuals shot and killed by police were less likely to have been attacking police officers than the white individuals fatally shot by police" both ways?

 

[slowG]

From the only statistic shown in that article, blacks are less likely to be armed then a whites. So of the the unarmed people shot more would translate to be black.

 

[Kutnupe14]

From the only statistic shown in that article, blacks are less likely to be armed then a whites. So of the the unarmed people shot more would translate to be black.

As a gun owner, you are clear that being armed, doesn't also mean attacking (cough, cough Philando Castile), right?

 

[wtburnette]

That's actually incorrect, proportionately more, but in pure numbers certainly not.

Yep, I see that. Went out and looked at some statistics. I can still see why race is important when looking for suspects, but I'm not a LEO so I can't answer anything outside of that.

 

[david890]

Yep, I see that. Went out and looked at some statistics. I can still see why race is important when looking for suspects, but I'm not a LEO so I can't answer anything outside of that.

That's called "racial profiling", which is one of the major complaints of BLM and the black community as a whole. It would be no different that if I said, "I can still see why race is important when looking for someone OWI", or "I can still see why race is important when looking for someone with meth on them". Are there numbers to support a claim that OWI or meth possession are correlated to race? I sincerely doubt it. There are stats showing different rates of alcoholism and drug use between the races, but you can't* use those as probable cause for either an OWI stop or vehicle search for narcotics.

*IANAL, nor an LEO.

 

[wtburnette]

That's called "racial profiling", which is one of the major complaints of BLM and the black community as a whole. It would be no different that if I said, "I can still see why race is important when looking for someone OWI", or "I can still see why race is important when looking for someone with meth on them". Are there numbers to support a claim that OWI or meth possession are correlated to race? I sincerely doubt it. There are stats showing different rates of alcoholism and drug use between the races, but you can't* use those as probable cause for either an OWI stop or vehicle search for narcotics.

*IANAL, nor an LEO.

What I meant is, if the suspects to a crime are of a certain race, I can see paying particular attention to suspicious members of that race. I'm race agnostic when I say that. If the police are looking for a white male, with dark hair, facial hair and wearing a blue shirt, it would be stupid if I had a problem if they pulled over someone, near the crime, matching that description. If they pulled over a black guy in that case, I could see a problem. Otherwise...

 

[Kutnupe14]

What I meant is, if the suspects to a crime are of a certain race, I can see paying particular attention to suspicious members of that race. I'm race agnostic when I say that. If the police are looking for a white male, with dark hair, facial hair and wearing a blue shirt, it would be stupid if I had a problem if they pulled over someone, near the crime, matching that description. If they pulled over a black guy in that case, I could see a problem. Otherwise...

And I get that. I too really don't have that much of an issue with it. But here's the issue I do have: profiling them solely because of their race without an articulable crime being committed. There's a video of a couple guys driving their car through a nice neighborhood (homes $300K and up), where one of them owned a home he was selling. They're stopped, because the officer had "never seen" their car before. So they talk a little bit, and the driver of the car says, that he will just drive to his house, and the officer agrees. The officer follows them to their house, pulls in the driveway, and follows them up to the door, to make sure that they actually have the keys to the home... which they do. They even invite him in. The officer declines, says nothing else, and drives away. What do you think those two guy's thoughts should be afterwards. "Oh they probably do the same thing to white people" or "I'm a black guy in a predominantly white neighborhood, so I'm suspicious."?

 

[wtburnette]

And I get that. I too really don't have that much of an issue with it. But here's the issue I do have: profiling them solely because of their race without an articulable crime being committed. There's a video of a couple guys driving their car through a nice neighborhood (homes $300K and up), where one of them owned a home he was selling. They're stopped, because the officer had "never seen" their car before. So they talk a little bit, and the driver of the car says, that he will just drive to his house, and the officer agrees. The officer follows them to their house, pulls in the driveway, and follows them up to the door, to make sure that they actually have the keys to the home... which they do. They even invite him in. The officer declines, says nothing else, and drives away. What do you think those two guy's thoughts should be afterwards. "Oh they probably do the same thing to white people" or "I'm a black guy in a predominantly white neighborhood, so I'm suspicious."?

Agreed. Stopping someone based off of just their race is wrong. That said, there are times that the line is blurred enough that I'm glad I'm not a LEO and don't have to make the judgment calls they have to make.