The critical response to this research, which they helpfully link, seems to imply the authors (and arguably others) using racial shootings data to conclude that

The critical response to this research, which they helpfully link, seems to imply the authors (and arguably others) using racial shootings data to conclude that PoC are not in fact shot at a higher rate - have fallen for a base rate fallacy or selection/sample bias, where the base rate of upstream neutral encounters between all people and police is not captured in the data. Without that frame, there isn't enough information to infer causality in the selected data. The linked critical letter: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1261 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1261 That's my layman reading of this, as the language is a bit opaque. If that is their assertion, this kind of error seems like such a rookie mistake I would sympathize with someone who thought that neglect was ideological or misrepresented. Personally, I think in politics and policy, data is used for support not illumination. The only way data ever causes anyone to change their mind is if it comes from a poll. That's my skepticism, but a more capable reading of the criticism would be useful.