When someone's iPhone catches yet another white police officer shooting and killing yet another black person, so long as the black person does not have a sniper rifle trained on police heads, does that, per se, justify nationwide riots and protests?
Or, should blacks be shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Why aren't you whites rioting or protesting? You have more grounds!"?
For purposes of this piece, I hereby affirm that there is terrible prejudice in our society against minorities, especially against blacks. It is so inimical and pervasive that even blacks frequently feel driven to cooperate with, and engage in behavior cooperating with, that prejudice. I've seen race prejudice against blacks by blacks in action. It is disgusting. Denying race prejudice against blacks in our country is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
However, I have also seen racially prejudiced actions by minorities, including by blacks, against whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
And, of course, I have also seen courageous acts of selfless love by blacks toward whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
Okay, so, hopefully, readers can see where I am initially going here. In other words, I want to check if black hate toward whites in response to murders by police of blacks is, on balance, justified, or should blacks be singing praise of police for what, on balance, amounts to restraint by police when it comes to murdering minorities, especially blacks, in the extremely limited sense that the figures suggest that police make a conscientious effort to murder fewer blacks encountered by them than whites encountered by them, per capita!!!!!!!
Once again, I affirm the following ...
For purposes of this piece, I hereby affirm that there is terrible prejudice in our society against minorities, especially against blacks. It is so inimical and pervasive that even blacks frequently feel driven to cooperate with, and engage in behavior cooperating with, that prejudice. I've seen race prejudice in action. It is disgusting. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
However, I have also seen racially prejudiced actions by minorities, including blacks, against whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
And, of course, I have also seen courageous acts of selfless love by blacks toward whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
Okay?
So, this blog article examines, "Is the evidence there to justify the riots and protests against police?"
A lot of blacks and white liberals will avoid doing the emotional work which such an analysis entails by blowing-off it, and me, as "obviously prejudiced," or "obviously deranged." They'd rather argue with their assumptions, than think.
But -- come on -- do better than that.
The FBI collects the statistics.
As one would expect, in a country where 62% of the people are non-Asian, non-Hispanic, non-black whites, the raw stats say that the cops murder more whites than blacks.
But, of course, a moron knows that such a statistic is not, per se, significant.
Suppose a country has 11,000,000 white citizens and 10 black citizens, and one year later 11 whites have been murdered by police, but 10 blacks have been murdered by the same police.
Technically, one could argue that "the whites had it worst," but would that be true?
No! Of course not! Statistically, in such a society, being black is a death sentence! Blacks, in such a society, have it much, much, much worse.
And so, the Mavens of Openmindedness at the Washington Post, when they looked at this issue, made an adjustment to the FBI's figures ...
But, could it be that the Washington Post has not adjusted the figures in its analysis enough?
Let me repeat that question: Could it be that the Washington Post has not adjusted the figures in its analysis enough?
To put it another way, Despite the Washington Post's adjustment, are figures still lying and liars still figuring, in their analysis?
One of the things which happens in society is that poverty drives crime.
And, poverty drives drug use which also drives crime.
When I was in the Philadelphia DA's Office, years ago, from 1978 to 1981, what did I see?
What I saw was much, much, much more crime, per capita, per square mile, and per hour, in poor black neighborhoods as in white neighborhoods in Philadelphia -- about 8 times as much, when I read a police call count in the early 1980s.
The reason is simple and obvious: Again, poverty drives crime.
And, poverty drives drug use which also drives crime.
The crime drives raw police / suspect contact frequency -- more crime is seen by police, and more calls for assistance go out to police, in ghetto neighborhoods.
Did the Washington Post adjust for that?
No.
What happens when we adjust for that?
Essentially, the numbers reverse themselves. In addition to it becoming more clear why Washington Post editors don't park their cars in ghetto neighborhoods, there is an odd, suspicious appearance that, per encounter, police are somewhat more likely to murder whites than blacks, as you weight the figures to reflect police calls and stops.
The bottom line: Suddenly, it becomes unclear that there is really a problem.
I'm not saying, "The statistics say that there is no race prejudice."
I'm not saying, "The statistics say that that white cops don't murder unarmed blacks."
I'm saying, "The statistics seem to require a conclusion that per police call or police stop, in America police are really more likely to murder whites than they are to murder blacks."
However, I have also seen racially prejudiced actions by minorities, including blacks, against whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
And, of course, I have also seen courageous acts of selfless love by blacks toward whites. Denying it is the act of an idiot. Denying it is immoral.
Okay?
So, this blog article examines, "Is the evidence there to justify the riots and protests against police?"
A lot of blacks and white liberals will avoid doing the emotional work which such an analysis entails by blowing-off it, and me, as "obviously prejudiced," or "obviously deranged." They'd rather argue with their assumptions, than think.
But -- come on -- do better than that.
The FBI collects the statistics.
As one would expect, in a country where 62% of the people are non-Asian, non-Hispanic, non-black whites, the raw stats say that the cops murder more whites than blacks.
But, of course, a moron knows that such a statistic is not, per se, significant.
Suppose a country has 11,000,000 white citizens and 10 black citizens, and one year later 11 whites have been murdered by police, but 10 blacks have been murdered by the same police.
Technically, one could argue that "the whites had it worst," but would that be true?
No! Of course not! Statistically, in such a society, being black is a death sentence! Blacks, in such a society, have it much, much, much worse.
And so, the Mavens of Openmindedness at the Washington Post, when they looked at this issue, made an adjustment to the FBI's figures ...
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.
That seems like a correct adjustment -- like that liberals should all conclude, "Hey! Look! The protestors are correct! Let's all stop listening to the other side and go home!" Right?But, could it be that the Washington Post has not adjusted the figures in its analysis enough?
Let me repeat that question: Could it be that the Washington Post has not adjusted the figures in its analysis enough?
To put it another way, Despite the Washington Post's adjustment, are figures still lying and liars still figuring, in their analysis?
One of the things which happens in society is that poverty drives crime.
And, poverty drives drug use which also drives crime.
When I was in the Philadelphia DA's Office, years ago, from 1978 to 1981, what did I see?
What I saw was much, much, much more crime, per capita, per square mile, and per hour, in poor black neighborhoods as in white neighborhoods in Philadelphia -- about 8 times as much, when I read a police call count in the early 1980s.
The reason is simple and obvious: Again, poverty drives crime.
And, poverty drives drug use which also drives crime.
The crime drives raw police / suspect contact frequency -- more crime is seen by police, and more calls for assistance go out to police, in ghetto neighborhoods.
Did the Washington Post adjust for that?
No.
What happens when we adjust for that?
Essentially, the numbers reverse themselves. In addition to it becoming more clear why Washington Post editors don't park their cars in ghetto neighborhoods, there is an odd, suspicious appearance that, per encounter, police are somewhat more likely to murder whites than blacks, as you weight the figures to reflect police calls and stops.
The bottom line: Suddenly, it becomes unclear that there is really a problem.
I'm not saying, "The statistics say that there is no race prejudice."
I'm not saying, "The statistics say that that white cops don't murder unarmed blacks."
I'm saying, "The statistics seem to require a conclusion that per police call or police stop, in America police are really more likely to murder whites than they are to murder blacks."
