4 ms·

Black people are more than 250% more likely to be killed by the police than white people. Do you want a peer reviewed study and some autopsies about what's shri

Black people are more than 250% more likely to be killed by the police than white people. Do you want a peer reviewed study and some autopsies about what's shriekingly-obvious? Officially, 1:137000 per year for African-Americans killed by cops. 1:533333 per year for White Americans. The numbers are likely far higher because of the purposeful LACK of data and the CDC forbids research on all gun violence, not just murders by police in particular. Oh and then there's the fact that America has the highest incarceration rate in the world except for Seychelles, and the vast majority are black and brown people in for nonviolent, petty crimes like weed. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/16/trump-police-abolition-black-americans https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/16/trump-... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124036/number-people-killed-police-ethnicity-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124036/number-people-ki...

MikeUt 6y ago
> Black people are more than 250% more likely to be killed by the police than white people. Is that compared to their share of the population, or their share of violent crime? If you compare only to population, apply that same logic to gender - how much more likely are men to be killed by police than women?
ordu 6y ago
The article discussed shows that dis-proportionality might be explained by wealth. Poor people are more likely to experience a police violence. And black person are more likely to be poor. As I understand, if you controlled for wealth, when calculating rates, you'd get the same rates for black and white. In contrast, articles linked by you are examples of "journalistic research" where people who cannot into statistics just mechanically use some primitive statistic tools, get some numbers, and jumped to a causal explanations without a second thought about validity of their conclusions. But correlation is not causation. Children with bigger feet could read better. It is correlation, but there is no causation, big feet do not help to read. I repeat, I do not entirely convinced by that correlation with wealth, but it seems as a plausible explanation. While pointing to some correlation and jumping to conclusions do not seems like a good way to find roots of a social problem.

MikeUt 6y ago

> Black people are more than 250% more likely to be killed by the police than white people. Is that compared to their share of the population, or their share of violent crime? If you compare only to population, apply that same logic to gender - how much more likely are men to be killed by police than women?

ordu 6y ago

The article discussed shows that dis-proportionality might be explained by wealth. Poor people are more likely to experience a police violence. And black person are more likely to be poor. As I understand, if you controlled for wealth, when calculating rates, you'd get the same rates for black and white. In contrast, articles linked by you are examples of "journalistic research" where people who cannot into statistics just mechanically use some primitive statistic tools, get some numbers, and jumped to a causal explanations without a second thought about validity of their conclusions. But correlation is not causation. Children with bigger feet could read better. It is correlation, but there is no causation, big feet do not help to read. I repeat, I do not entirely convinced by that correlation with wealth, but it seems as a plausible explanation. While pointing to some correlation and jumping to conclusions do not seems like a good way to find roots of a social problem.