- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 4,489
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
This was the definition difference that I laid out in my posts talking to @Welsh Exile - statistically speaking, an officer is much more likely to be at risk if they pull over a black person, purely by virtue of stats alone. It's an end product to a deep issue that culminates in higher than should be expected violent crime rates for black people, and thus a more "agressive" police response in general. It is not itself the issue, but representative of a deeper one.
I'm pretty sure we don't actually disagree on the substance here, it is simply the framing that is different.
If you are suggesting that no risk assesment should ever be made on anything based on statistics if they correspond to race, gender or any other physical characteristics, then that is definetly going to do far more harm than good.
That's not quite the point I was making, but re-reading it I can see how it may have been misinterpreted. I was acknowledging that unarmed black people are more likely to be shot and killed by police, but also pointing out that overall, in a country of 328 Million, it is a tiny number of people regardless of race. Of course every life lost is a tradgedy, but in terms of combatting the issue moving forward, perspective is important.
I would argue as well, that it may be better, in regards to the killings in particular, to measure it instead through the lens of total violent criminals rather than total population, which would provide an enitrely different result - however obviously because we don't have records of all the killings and the criminal history of the victims (and it's entirely possible that they don't have a violent record), it's not something we can really do at the moment. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroo...in-us-more-than-3-times-as-high-as-in-whites/
I can fully agree with the first part of this. Police forces in the US clearly need better funding for better training across the board - seeing funding cut would most definetly not help.
Obviously, a warrant out for his arrest is likely to escalate the situation, especially if it was for a violent crime.
The issue here is you are just making assumptions of motive/sentiment on their part and his based on zero evidence. Despite that, even if they were more cautious and ready for it to turn violent, that's not purely by virtue of him being a black man - if that were the case, it would likely be that, statistically, there is more likely to be an escalation. Again, it would be great if that wasn't the case, but in a field where everything is about measured risk and probability, it would be nonsensical not to acknowledge it.
This sentence in bold is the crux of it - this is the end product rather than the problem in itself. They are more likely to be stopped by virtue of the fact that they are statistically more likely to be living in, or part of, a community or demographic which is responsible for much higher levels of crime. It's the same reason a 25 year old is more likely to be stopped than an 80 year old - it's a measured risk that speaks to deeper social issues.
Again, it is an issue, but the police statistics aren't the root of the problem - they are a window into it.
It really does feel to me that the statement was more a result of the media not liking the findings more than anything else if I'm being honest - but happy for it to be discounted regardless.
The point still stands I think anyway - obviously a higher portion of black people than one should expect are shot by police when the same demographic makes up such a huge portion of the crime rate. I know you are going to say that is indicative of systemic racism in wider society, but as I laid out in my posts earlier, I really don't think that label is appropriate or helpful.
I feel like this section speaks to a rampant issue in today's politics/social sphere, where being able to stick an all encompassing label on something comes ahead actually looking at problems and how to solve them rather than perpetually talk about them.
In order to combat crime, poverty and any number of social issues, you have to understand why they are there (if it's a long term issue especially) and thus how one fixes it. Labeling everything that results in unequal outcome as "systemically racist" is deeply unhelpful and largely ignores problems, promoting the idea that there are catch all solutions to radically different problems. Black people not having the vote and low black educational attainment would both be labeled as "systemic racism" under your definition - but they are completely different issues, with different reasons for existing.
Again, we are mostly disagreeing over the definition here - though you also seem to be suggesting that the use of statistics to determine probability is something that shouldn't happen - which I hope I'm misinterpreting?
