2 ms·

The article I posted synthesizes its primary conclusion from two biased sources: 1.>According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victim

The article I posted synthesizes its primary conclusion from two biased sources: 1.>According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black 2.>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 Because of the agenda of the media featured on google (wapo, huffpo, et all), it is left to the readers to compile these two sets of data and infer that, if we take the disproportionate confrontation rate for assaults alone, per capita it would explain why more black people appear to be dying. I don't have time to provide you with a statistical analysis, just note that the sources for this data should be "legitimate," especially when they effextively lie through omission by selectively reporting data to further their pre-drawn conclusion.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
It's pretty clear you're not arguing in good faith; but, for the sake of anyone that happens upon your post, just going to enumerate a subset of your weak assumptions. --Restrict crime stats to 75 counties (ie major cities) without also restricting fatal shootings --Assuming population ratios are constant among those counties as compared to the wider nation (required to generate percapita) --Not addressing the issue of scale between your two data sets. I don't know for certain, but I'd wager the number of violent crime incidents is at least an order of magnitude greater than the number of police fatal shootings. --Related to the population point above but not accounting for potential inequalities in the who is charged in which counties. You don't have "time" to provide a comprehensive statistical analysis because doing it right is nontrivial and very likely isn't going to conform to the views you spent so long searching the net to validate.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

It's pretty clear you're not arguing in good faith; but, for the sake of anyone that happens upon your post, just going to enumerate a subset of your weak assumptions. --Restrict crime stats to 75 counties (ie major cities) without also restricting fatal shootings --Assuming population ratios are constant among those counties as compared to the wider nation (required to generate percapita) --Not addressing the issue of scale between your two data sets. I don't know for certain, but I'd wager the number of violent crime incidents is at least an order of magnitude greater than the number of police fatal shootings. --Related to the population point above but not accounting for potential inequalities in the who is charged in which counties. You don't have "time" to provide a comprehensive statistical analysis because doing it right is nontrivial and very likely isn't going to conform to the views you spent so long searching the net to validate.