> Saying that it may be true is accepting the possibility :)
Only if you completely ignore the other part of that same sentence :)
> This I have to confess I don't understand. The site is trying to answer that exact question, and their answer is "racism". Now, they may be wrong, but I don't see how it's another issue... what issue are you focusing on, then?
Think I covered that in my original comment (and the subsequent ones too) - was just not convinced that "racism" is the correct answer and questioning the reasoning behind it.
The entire point is "in disproportionately higher numbers" related to what? Just the entire population or their ratio in the total number or cases?
If you believe the number of convictions makes a difference there - you're welcome to counter it with some numbers of your own.
I do believe the percentage of arrests is the right number to compare it to here - as police violence happens exactly when the arrests are made. I do acknowledge that I used the wrong word "committed" where I could have written "arrested" - but here its just semantics and changes absolutely nothing.
Why would I have "an interest in being neutral about ending human lives" - really dude? Beautiful stuff really.
Where did I accept the possibility of police killings being skewed by racism? That might or might not be true - but I wasn't really looking at that.
All I did was just interpret the existing numbers and correlate them to other statistics that make more sense to me (if we're talking about race and the percentage of single ethnicity in the number total of deaths, then to me it makes a lot more sense to look at the percentage of crime that ethnicity committed in total).
Again - I'm trying very hard to detach the issue from emotions/race and just look at the numbers. Why there is a disproportional number of black people in the US being arrested or killed is certainly appalling - but its also a whole other issue.
Your comment is exactly why I find these topics difficult - responses come back disproportionally emotional and as you put it "hostile" in relation to (what I believe to be) a pretty neutral comment.
For one - I believe there is never sufficient justification for "onsite execution". I don't see how looking at convictions vs. arrests changes anything about that? We could compare it to convictions if you'd like - the gap might be even larger I believe.
My main point was that I hypothesise most of these issues are in fact due to income inequality more than anything else. It's still a huge issue - but a whole other issue - why that income inequality gap might be larger within the black population in the US.
Crime rate vs. number of persons killed is something that I find a lot more comfortable accepting then just blindly comparing the relations to the total population. It would be just as easy for me to question your detachment from reality or the lack of self-awareness.
I always struggle with racial (and religious) topics - everything about it is so emotionally charged and a lot of the time I find that data is presented superficially and can support any claim you'd like it to support. I'd like to imagine that we're living in 2020 and that race is not as much as of a problem as for example economic inequality.
For example - to me, a more plausible hypothesis in this "modern world" would be that people from poor neighbourhoods suffer from police violence more. Has anyone correlated those police departments with median income?
Even statistical claims on this website seem charged to me sometimes - for example this is the first sentence on the site "Black people were 24% of those killed despite being only 13% of the population." - however upon (superficial) research - in 2016[1] of all crimes committed 26.9% were by black perpetrators. So in relation to that statistic - the other percentage doesn't seem that surprising any more. But without that extra piece of info the whole sentence (any maybe the whole site) exhibits bias because the correlation is skewed.
Only if you completely ignore the other part of that same sentence :)
> This I have to confess I don't understand. The site is trying to answer that exact question, and their answer is "racism". Now, they may be wrong, but I don't see how it's another issue... what issue are you focusing on, then?
Think I covered that in my original comment (and the subsequent ones too) - was just not convinced that "racism" is the correct answer and questioning the reasoning behind it.