4 ms·

Factors increasing police shootings - Large metropolitan counties - Low median incomes - High financial inequality - Sizeable portion of black residents. Facto

Factors increasing police shootings - Large metropolitan counties - Low median incomes - High financial inequality - Sizeable portion of black residents. Factors which did not affect police shootings - Local level crime rates - Race specific crime rates Crazy takeaways - A black unarmed individual 3.49x more likely to be shot than a white unarmed individual on average across america. - Some counties showing 20x more likely I'm interested to see this data in relationship to gun accessibility and gun ownership stats. Would less access to firearms affect police shootings? Is there a racial connection to gun ownership and carrying? I'm not american and the idea of civilians with guns seems just so crazy to me.

bluedino 10y ago
Facts that you don't much analysis to see: (CDC) - From 1999-2011, 2,151 whites died as a result of being shot by police compared to just 1,130 blacks. (DOJ) In 2013 black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites (despite blacks being only 13% of the population and black males 18-35 being 3%)
- kmkemp 10y ago
  "From 1999-2011, 2,151 whites died as a result of being shot by police compared to just 1,130 blacks." That is meaningless without adjusting for population sizes. "In 2013 black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites" I think what you mean to say is that blacks were convicted of 38% of murders compared to 31.1% for whites. I'm not saying that judicial injustice is enough to close a gap that wide, but you shouldn't present those facts without context.
  - kmkemp 10y ago
    Thanks for the downvotes with no explanation. Did you know that blacks and hispanics make up about 59% of the prison population compared to 32% for non-hispanic whites (a ratio of 1.84), but yet the Innocence Project has exonerated (as of 2010) 172 black and hispanic persons compared to 82 whites (a ratio of 2.1)? Unless my math is wrong, that is about a 14% discrepancy.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Why do you assume that the rate of actual innocence is constant across race/ethnicity of prisoners?
      - kmkemp 10y ago
        The entire point of my statistics is to show that there is judicial injustice based on race. I show the opposite of your assertion by comparing prison demographics to exoneration demographics. So either the Innocence Project is racially biased (DNA evidence) or our judicial system is racially biased.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > So either the Innocence Project is racially biased (DNA evidence) or our judicial system is racially biased. For some reason, I misread your post as arguing the former and implying the assumption that the latter was not true, but I can't for the life of me see why I did that looking back at it.
        pixl97 10y ago
        >The entire point of my statistics is to show that there is judicial injustice based on race. I don't believe you have enough information to show that with just racial information. A different study is needed that shows initial judicial justice based on dollars spent on defence. Essentially we need to know the likelihood of injustice based on each $10,000 spent on lawyers. If our findings show that defendants that spend larger amounts on their defense have a lower number unjust rulings then race is a lower factor and poverty is a larger factor. Since blacks in America are more apt to live in poverty, a simple black and white racial analysis will fail in showing causation.
        kmkemp 10y ago
        Yes, you're right on that point. I suspect we would find that they are both large factors, though. Keep in mind that the statistics I showed actually undersell the prevalence since I compared the prison population to exonerations. Exonerations typically require DNA evidence and there are any number of crimes that can land you in prison where DNA evidence is a non-factor. Even the appeals process isn't immune from racial bias.
- modoc 10y ago
  Yes if you adjust for homicide rate OR the rate at which police officers are killed by civilians (black vs white) you get: “Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”
- specialist 10y ago
  Your point? IIRC, blacks are 13% of the population yet 30% of the police killings. Lies, damned lies, statistics.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > IIRC, blacks are 13% of the population yet 30% of the police killings. Yes, and blacks are 13% of the population but 38% of the murderers (to use your & the OP's numbers). The point is that in two random encounters with two random people (one black, one white), the black person is more likely to be a murderer than the white person. That's not racist: it's just a fact. As an example, I'll use the 2013 FBI crime statistics (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...) and 2015 U.S. Census data (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/) — yes, there will be some inaccuracy due to using different years' data, but the 2015 crime data isn't yet available by race that I could find. In 2015, 77.1% of the U.S. population — 247,813,910 people — were white; 3,799 whites were arrested for murder in 2013, for an arrested-murderer rate of 1:65,200. In 2015, 13.3% of the U.S. population — 42,748,703 people — were black; 4,379 blacks were arrested for murder in 2013, for an arrested-murderer rate of 1:9,760. Assuming the correctness of those numbers, and assuming that black and whites are fairly arrested for murder, any random black person one encounters is 6.68 times as likely to be a murderer as a white person. Now, there are no doubt some very powerful arguments that blacks and whites are not equally treated when it comes to murder arrests, but even if only half of all blacks arrested for murder are guilty and as many white murderers are never arrested for murder as are, the multiplier would still be 1.67, and honestly those assumptions are a stretch. Given the previous assumption of fairness, police killing blacks 3.49 times as often as whites would indicate that they are actually almost twice as cautious of killing blacks (or twice as quick to kill whites) as the actual random-encounter risk would predict: 6.68/3.49 = 1.91.
    - specialist 10y ago
      So police killing a higher proportion of unarmed blacks vs unarmed whites is okay because, um, reasons.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

bluedino 10y ago

Facts that you don't much analysis to see: (CDC) - From 1999-2011, 2,151 whites died as a result of being shot by police compared to just 1,130 blacks. (DOJ) In 2013 black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites (despite blacks being only 13% of the population and black males 18-35 being 3%)

kmkemp 10y ago
"From 1999-2011, 2,151 whites died as a result of being shot by police compared to just 1,130 blacks." That is meaningless without adjusting for population sizes. "In 2013 black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites" I think what you mean to say is that blacks were convicted of 38% of murders compared to 31.1% for whites. I'm not saying that judicial injustice is enough to close a gap that wide, but you shouldn't present those facts without context.
- kmkemp 10y ago
  Thanks for the downvotes with no explanation. Did you know that blacks and hispanics make up about 59% of the prison population compared to 32% for non-hispanic whites (a ratio of 1.84), but yet the Innocence Project has exonerated (as of 2010) 172 black and hispanic persons compared to 82 whites (a ratio of 2.1)? Unless my math is wrong, that is about a 14% discrepancy.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Why do you assume that the rate of actual innocence is constant across race/ethnicity of prisoners?
    - kmkemp 10y ago
      The entire point of my statistics is to show that there is judicial injustice based on race. I show the opposite of your assertion by comparing prison demographics to exoneration demographics. So either the Innocence Project is racially biased (DNA evidence) or our judicial system is racially biased.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > So either the Innocence Project is racially biased (DNA evidence) or our judicial system is racially biased. For some reason, I misread your post as arguing the former and implying the assumption that the latter was not true, but I can't for the life of me see why I did that looking back at it.
      - pixl97 10y ago
        >The entire point of my statistics is to show that there is judicial injustice based on race. I don't believe you have enough information to show that with just racial information. A different study is needed that shows initial judicial justice based on dollars spent on defence. Essentially we need to know the likelihood of injustice based on each $10,000 spent on lawyers. If our findings show that defendants that spend larger amounts on their defense have a lower number unjust rulings then race is a lower factor and poverty is a larger factor. Since blacks in America are more apt to live in poverty, a simple black and white racial analysis will fail in showing causation.
        kmkemp 10y ago
        Yes, you're right on that point. I suspect we would find that they are both large factors, though. Keep in mind that the statistics I showed actually undersell the prevalence since I compared the prison population to exonerations. Exonerations typically require DNA evidence and there are any number of crimes that can land you in prison where DNA evidence is a non-factor. Even the appeals process isn't immune from racial bias.
modoc 10y ago
Yes if you adjust for homicide rate OR the rate at which police officers are killed by civilians (black vs white) you get: “Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”
specialist 10y ago
Your point? IIRC, blacks are 13% of the population yet 30% of the police killings. Lies, damned lies, statistics.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > IIRC, blacks are 13% of the population yet 30% of the police killings. Yes, and blacks are 13% of the population but 38% of the murderers (to use your & the OP's numbers). The point is that in two random encounters with two random people (one black, one white), the black person is more likely to be a murderer than the white person. That's not racist: it's just a fact. As an example, I'll use the 2013 FBI crime statistics (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...) and 2015 U.S. Census data (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/) — yes, there will be some inaccuracy due to using different years' data, but the 2015 crime data isn't yet available by race that I could find. In 2015, 77.1% of the U.S. population — 247,813,910 people — were white; 3,799 whites were arrested for murder in 2013, for an arrested-murderer rate of 1:65,200. In 2015, 13.3% of the U.S. population — 42,748,703 people — were black; 4,379 blacks were arrested for murder in 2013, for an arrested-murderer rate of 1:9,760. Assuming the correctness of those numbers, and assuming that black and whites are fairly arrested for murder, any random black person one encounters is 6.68 times as likely to be a murderer as a white person. Now, there are no doubt some very powerful arguments that blacks and whites are not equally treated when it comes to murder arrests, but even if only half of all blacks arrested for murder are guilty and as many white murderers are never arrested for murder as are, the multiplier would still be 1.67, and honestly those assumptions are a stretch. Given the previous assumption of fairness, police killing blacks 3.49 times as often as whites would indicate that they are actually almost twice as cautious of killing blacks (or twice as quick to kill whites) as the actual random-encounter risk would predict: 6.68/3.49 = 1.91.
  - specialist 10y ago
    So police killing a higher proportion of unarmed blacks vs unarmed whites is okay because, um, reasons.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]