Quote:
Here's another way to look at it, lets say the speed limit is 50mph. And it gets raised to 55mph. One side says it was raised a whopping 10%. The other side says, it was only raised a mere 5mph.
I understand but my example is not the same stat being explained two different ways . There "is" an actual statistical difference in my example .
Whites = 100
Blacks = 10
What is 10% of each of those . Whites is 10 and blacks is 1 . Translate those to population and the whites should be killed 10x more then blacks if they both were being killed at the same rate per year and yet blacks get killed 4x more per there population
Here is a fly in the ointment.
It happens that a study is made using apparently one variable.
In the example you gave,the variable was skin color. It would be easy to jump to a conclusion about cops and skin color.
But your logic overlooks the fact that with skin color many other variables enter the equation.
Hypothetically:
It is possible the criteria of skin color might select a demographic of people who coincidentally live with poverty and high population density,and perhaps an education system that does not serve them well.
It also might be a hostile environment for police officers of any race.
Andy and Barney style may not be sustainable. Policing style might be different in Chicago vs Mayberry.
I do not intend to trash the very high percentage of courteous.professional LEO's.
But I can appreciate that police contacts and field interrogations for the 97Th time MIGHT build up an inner rage in a young man guilty of nothing more than "Walking while Black"
I understand why cops mght want to see ID, but unless the citizen is being investigated for an identifiable crime,the citizen is not required to produce or provide ID. The Citizen already has the presumption of innocense,and doed not have to prove his innocense The cop who says "How do I know you are not (fill in the blank) is wrong.
And not having,or refusing to provide ID will often send the cop on a fishing expedition to find something,anything, to charge the citizen with.
If the Black Citizen is subjected to four or five times the number of police contacts,the numbers will show more violence and fatalities.
At least some of the time,there was no crime. The Citizen just refuses to comply with the indignity of having his 4th Amendment Rights violated.
The point is not about how the Citizen should handle it. The point is,this may skew the stats.
It might be that more training on the Constitutional Rights of Citizens,with the clear message that "workarounds" will not be tolerated is in order.
Those factors may contribute to a higher per capita crime rate......iPerhaps poverty and population density are more significant than skin color,and,in fact, skin color itself may have little or nothing to do with it.
For whatever reason,(and I do not claim to know the answers) a population arbitrarily defined by skin color may (for whatever reason) have 10 times the violent crime where they live.
If we select the often quoted Chicago stats,how would they compare to Pocatello?
The hazards of being a young black male living in some parts of Chicago are real.
I don't think it would be correct to jump to conclusions from those numbers.
Its possible it would help if you applied control groups to your "study".
I really do not want to walk any farther into this minefield.
The same flawed logic shows itself in many other arguments.
Like 9mm vs 45. Right or wrong,some will argue "bigger is better" based purely on bullet diameter. But that does not cover all the variables that apply.
The 9mm will inherently have more mag capacity,and will be more controllable. So the arguement might be,which is more effective,three hits with 9mm vs two with 45.
And PLEASE...that was only a non-racial example of another arguement that gets lost in the weeds by oversimplification.
Lets NOT argue 9mm vs 45 here.
Which is a tough position to have living in CA 