What's the biggest reason for Blacks not advancing

tschu said:
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6051043/how-many-people-killed-police-statistics-homicide-official-black
Click to expand...
I love statistics. I think they help tell the story of many things we try to figure out. Obviously, blacks are killed by cops more than whites. That is the raw data. However, another thing I love about statistics is then digging deeper and seeing why something may be true statistically.

Here is another article from Vox.

LINK

I found the first paragraph interesting as it pertains to the statistics in the first link.

"Blacks represent 13% of the population but commit 50% of the murders; 90% of black victims are murdered by other blacks," writes Time's Joe Klein, calling for "provocative" thinking on race in America. "The facts suggest that history is not enough to explain this social disaster."
Click to expand...

So, black people commit 50% of the murders in America. This means that 50% of the time that police are investigating or being called to a murder, it is a black person.

So.....wouldn't it stand to reason that if the police are come in contact with violent black people 50% of the time, they would then end up shooting a black person at a higher rate than what black people represent in the general population?

 
Yes and no.

The important part of that graph is that the "not attacking when killed" bars are significantly higher; without a race bias they would remain at 31%.

 
I believe that statistics is if the person that was killed was attacking the police officer when killed.

How many were a direct threat to someone other than the police officer when killed?

 
BigRedBuster said:
I believe that statistics is if the person that was killed was attacking the police officer when killed.

How many were a direct threat to someone other than the police officer when killed?
Click to expand...
It should still mirror the 31%. Remember, this is a chart of "justifiable homicides" and the "not attacking" bars describe where the victim was doing something other than directly threatening anyone, police officer or otherwise. And the control for an already violent situation is the non-rifle non-shotgun stat, which is where just a standard-issue handgun was used, meaning that the situation was not already violent enough to bring in a rifle or a SWAT team. In this bar, the stats look even worse. So what you get when this is controlled for is a measure of how much of a difference within that ambiguous range can be attributed to a bias. Really the only argument you can use against it is that the sample size is only 118. Still pretty sizable.

 
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20140820-huey-p.-newton-gun-club-leads-open-carry-rally-in-south-dallas.ece

Well, this is about to get interesting.

Two dozen protesters — most of them armed — from a gun club named after the founder of the original Black Panther Party peacefully marched through parts of South Dallas on Wednesday.

The open-carry rally was organized by the Huey P. Newton Gun Club to promote self-defense and community policing in response to recent police shootings, both nationally and locally.

Police monitored the black-clad demonstrators, some of whom had rifles slung over their shoulders. As they walked down MLK Boulevard and Malcolm X Boulevard in the blistering heat, many chanted “black power” and “justice for Michael Brown,” the black teenager fatally shot by police this month in suburban St. Louis. His death has touched off a string of often-violent protests in that area.
Click to expand...
 
tschu said:
BigRedBuster said:
I believe that statistics is if the person that was killed was attacking the police officer when killed.

How many were a direct threat to someone other than the police officer when killed?
Click to expand...
It should still mirror the 31%. Remember, this is a chart of "justifiable homicides" and the "not attacking" bars describe where the victim was doing something other than directly threatening anyone, police officer or otherwise. And the control for an already violent situation is the non-rifle non-shotgun stat, which is where just a standard-issue handgun was used, meaning that the situation was not already violent enough to bring in a rifle or a SWAT team. In this bar, the stats look even worse. So what you get when this is controlled for is a measure of how much of a difference within that ambiguous range can be attributed to a bias. Really the only argument you can use against it is that the sample size is only 118. Still pretty sizable.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying there isn't a bias in policing. My point is that I caution everyone in looking at a simple stat and making major conclusions from it. The stat is what should make you start investigating more into what is causing it. It isn't the end all of information on the subject for which we can conclude to condemn a group of people (police).

 
BigRedBuster said:
tschu said:
BigRedBuster said:
I believe that statistics is if the person that was killed was attacking the police officer when killed.

How many were a direct threat to someone other than the police officer when killed?
Click to expand...
It should still mirror the 31%. Remember, this is a chart of "justifiable homicides" and the "not attacking" bars describe where the victim was doing something other than directly threatening anyone, police officer or otherwise. And the control for an already violent situation is the non-rifle non-shotgun stat, which is where just a standard-issue handgun was used, meaning that the situation was not already violent enough to bring in a rifle or a SWAT team. In this bar, the stats look even worse. So what you get when this is controlled for is a measure of how much of a difference within that ambiguous range can be attributed to a bias. Really the only argument you can use against it is that the sample size is only 118. Still pretty sizable.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying there isn't a bias in policing. My point is that I caution everyone in looking at a simple stat and making major conclusions from it. The stat is what should make you start investigating more into what is causing it. It isn't the end all of information on the subject for which we can conclude to condemn a group of people (police).
Click to expand...
Of course not. Every time I post a piece of evidence, I present it not as THE evidence but as a piece of the puzzle.

 
tschu said:
BigRedBuster said:
tschu said:
BigRedBuster said:
I believe that statistics is if the person that was killed was attacking the police officer when killed.

How many were a direct threat to someone other than the police officer when killed?
Click to expand...
It should still mirror the 31%. Remember, this is a chart of "justifiable homicides" and the "not attacking" bars describe where the victim was doing something other than directly threatening anyone, police officer or otherwise. And the control for an already violent situation is the non-rifle non-shotgun stat, which is where just a standard-issue handgun was used, meaning that the situation was not already violent enough to bring in a rifle or a SWAT team. In this bar, the stats look even worse. So what you get when this is controlled for is a measure of how much of a difference within that ambiguous range can be attributed to a bias. Really the only argument you can use against it is that the sample size is only 118. Still pretty sizable.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying there isn't a bias in policing. My point is that I caution everyone in looking at a simple stat and making major conclusions from it. The stat is what should make you start investigating more into what is causing it. It isn't the end all of information on the subject for which we can conclude to condemn a group of people (police).
Click to expand...
Of course not. Every time I post a piece of evidence, I present it not as THE evidence but as a piece of the puzzle.
Click to expand...
I said that partly due to your comment about "It should still mirror the 31%. You then stated (and I agree) that this is a relatively small sampling. Someone would have to go through the 118 incidents and classify them farther to then make a conclusion that we have major problems here. For me, I would need to look at the individual situations and decide if a mistake actually was made.

 
Yes.

And the bigger troubling thing is how much crime is pervasive in the African-American community in the first place. Which I guess mainly comes down to poverty.

 
tschu said:
Yes.

And the bigger troubling thing is how much crime is pervasive in the African-American community in the first place. Which I guess mainly comes down to poverty.
Click to expand...
I agree. the amount of crime is troubling. I would be interested in a study as to why poor black communities have more crime than other poor communities.

 
My guess is that it would be equal if their situations were equal. But poor blacks tend to reside in inner-city environments; poor whites tend to be more rural or suburban. (suburban isn't the right word, but you get what i mean)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tschu said:
My guess is that it would be equal if their situations were equal. But poor blacks tend to reside in inner-city environments; poor whites tend to be more rural or suburban. (suburban isn't the right word, but you get what i mean)
Click to expand...
So, maybe it has to do with the type of living situation they are in instead of necessarily poverty. (yes, I understand that poverty is a part of their living situation).

 
Back
Top