world

Rate of fatal U.S. police shootings of unarmed Black people '3 times higher than for whites'

35 Comments
By Angela Weiss

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2020 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Doesnt match the headline. Also totally ignores the looting and rioting going on in Philadelphia right now.

Of the 4,653 deaths that had sufficient information to be analyzed, the authors found that 51 percent of the fatalities were white, 27 percent were Black, 19 percent were listed as Hispanic, while Native American and Asian people each accounted for 2 percent.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

In the suburbs of North Minnesota (which have a large home-owning black middle class) they are now crying out for more police and law and order. Seems the "no police" experiment has just led to surging crime and anarchy!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Doesnt match the headline.

It does, if you keep reading.

Given the makeup of the U.S. population, the researchers calculated that Native Americans were three times more likely to be shot dead than white people, while Black people were more than 2.5 times, and Hispanic people 29 percent more likely

Do you understand?

Also totally ignores the looting and rioting going on in Philadelphia right now.

That's because it's not a story about Philadelphia. Protests against police brutality and murder are the result of police action, not the cause of them.

Seems the "no police" experiment has just led to surging crime and anarchy!

There has been no "no police" experiment.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@blacklabel

If you bothered to read the rest of the article you would see that "Given the makeup of the U.S. population, the researchers calculated that Native Americans were three times more likely to be shot dead than white people, while Black people were more than 2.5 times, and Hispanic people 29 percent more likely."

Furthermore: "also relative to population size -- Black people were 3.18 times more likely to be fatally shot than white people, while the rate was 1.45 times higher for Hispanic people."

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Oh so now you want to change it to the "make up of the population"?

where is the data about the number of police interactions by make up of the population?

isnt this also called per capita, which liberals refuse to accept as valid when the topic is corona cases/deaths?

Hmmm.....

51% of people shot to death by police are WHITE. narrative- done.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Researchers acknowledged the limitations to the study, including that the original data relied on news reports and could therefore have missed incidents that did not attract media attention.

So the study isn't that conclusive then. You could reframe it as 'unarmed black people shot by police are twice as likely to attract media attention'.... which would make it the opposite of racism, no?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

yeah I noticed none of the liberals mentioned they gathered this data from.....newspaper reports.

Hilarious that anyone would even try to take this seriously.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

It just confirms what many people who live in US always felt.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@ Black

so whites had 51% of the deaths. to be "three times higher", Black would have to be 153% of the deaths.

No. The first paragraph says (3 times higher) "....relative to their population "

2 ( +3 / -1 )

so its no worse under Trump than it was under Obama/Biden? This article is just a wealth of narrative killing information.

The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, found that the rate of incidents had remained largely unchanged in the last five years.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Oh so now you want to change it to the "make up of the population"?

It's not a change at all. It's how the statistics were measured. The article makes this clear. It's how the likelihood of being shot by police relative to one's race has always been calculated.

where is the data about the number of police interactions by make up of the population?

I expect it will similarly show that black people are disproportionally stopped by police.

isnt this also called per capita, which liberals refuse to accept as valid when the topic is corona cases/deaths?

I don't know what liberals are up to, but coronavirus deaths and infections are also often measured per capita. That's how we can tell that the US has failed in its ability to contain the virus.

51% of people shot to death by police are WHITE. narrative- done.

White people make up 77% of the US population, so they are shot to death by police 26% less than would be expected if the police shootings were equal.

yeah I noticed none of the liberals mentioned they gathered this data from.....newspaper reports.

It's literally in the article. I know you hate reading, but it really will help you.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"The only time a black man is safe in this country is when the white man is disarmed"

Major Marquis Warren
3 ( +3 / -0 )

so its no worse under Trump than it was under Obama/Biden?

That's right.

This article is just a wealth of narrative killing information.

Is it? You seem to be citing it as positive evidence that things are no worse under Trump in this regard (which is true), but also think that it's illegitimate. Which is it?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

so its no worse under Trump than it was under Obama/Biden? This article is just a wealth of narrative killing information.

It points to the conclusion that racial tension in the US is endemic, and not tied to political affiliation.

51 percent of the fatalities were white, 27 percent were Black, 19 percent were listed as Hispanic, while Native American and Asian people each accounted for 2 percent

That comes to 101%, so presumably there are some decimal points hiding in those figures.

Sad that in the great 'melting pot', after all this time people are still so easily and readily categorised into perceived race. Aren't they all just Americans?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

a little of both. manipulates stats to push a narrative in a headline.

Then buries in the article that the data source is only "news reports" and that there is little to no change over the last 5 years.

Strange, then there would be an article with this same headline in 2015, right? Dont remember hearing about it then, wonder why.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

a little of both. manipulates stats to push a narrative in a headline.

No statistics have been manipulated.

Then buries in the article that the data source is only "news reports" and that there is little to no change over the last 5 years.

It's on the fourth paragraph. That's not "buried", unless you're someone who hates to read and whose brain gets sore after three lines of text.

Strange, then there would be an article with this same headline in 2015, right? Dont remember hearing about it then, wonder why.

This is a new study, so it would be impossible to report on it in 2015. I wish that my post where I explained to you how time works had not been moderated, because it would stop you making mistakes like this.

However, many were vocal in 2014 when Michael Brown was murdered and cited similar statistics. You being unable to remember it is, alas, your own problem.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Oh yeah the "hands up dont shoot" hoax. thanks for the reminder.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

thats not how it works, at all. But believe what you want. just like you believe this article says something it doesnt because of the misleading headline.

51% of people shot by police were white. fact.

as 51% is already more than half, no way any other group can be more than that.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

This is the endemic standard, black people and minorities in the USA will always be shot first and asked questions later, just ask Kyle Rittenhouse.....

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Greater numbers of non whites are shot when compared with the actual size of their populations. More whites are actually shot only because they are they the main population group.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The right-wing cancel culture hates articles like this and want them silenced.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

the population group of the USA is irrelevant.

unlike COVID, the entire population can not have this happen to them, it requires a police interaction. automatic exclusion from the numbers.

No data on people who dont have police interactions by race so that they can be excluded from the data.

No data on police interactions by race.

No data on police interactions by race where a person was not shot dead.

So the only data set you can use is the people who have been shot and killed by police, which confirms a police interaction.

Among that group, with a confirmed police interaction and who were shot dead- 51% were white.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

5,367 fatal police shootings

4,653 deaths that had sufficient information to be analyzed.

51% white. 2,373 deaths. 60% of population.

27% Black. 1,256 deaths. 13% of population.

19% Hispanic. 884 deaths. 18.5% of population.

2% Native American and Asian. 93 deaths.

Blacks 32/million people. Hispanic 24/million people. Whites 13/million people. Others 4/million.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

how do you start with a data set of 5,367 fatal police shootings yet end with a data set of the entire population of the United States? do babies count too?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I see 1,117 more White people dead and buried than Black people dead and buried.

look at your numbers.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

thats not how it works, at all. But believe what you want. just like you believe this article says something it doesnt because of the misleading headline.

The headline isn't misleading, which you would know if you actually read the article.

51% of people shot by police were white. fact.

Correct.

as 51% is already more than half, no way any other group can be more than that.

51% is disproportionately low, compared to the 77% of the population that is white. Conversely, 27% is disproportionately high compared to the Black population being 13.4%.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You have more high crimes in minority communities endless resources and cops are sent to areas where the crime is the highest, that’s the bottom line of it.

Facts matter.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/VIOCRM.PDF

Democrat social policies has not help the black community at all.

I see 1,117 more White people dead and buried than Black people dead and buried. 

look at your numbers.

Yup.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

the population group of the USA is irrelevant.

It isn't.

how do you start with a data set of 5,367 fatal police shootings yet end with a data set of the entire population of the United States?

That isn't what happened. What is happening is comparing the racial make up of the entire US to the racial make up of those shot to death by police.

do babies count too?

Babies that the police have shot would be included, one assumes.

I see 1,117 more White people dead and buried than Black people dead and buried.

That is why these figures are taken in context.

Let's consider the following. Imagine three US citizens contract ebola, and two of them die. They were quickly quarantined, so no-one else was infected with ebola.

Most people would say, "wow, two out of the three people who caught ebola died, this is a huge death rate". You are saying, "actually, ebola only killed two people out of the 370 million in the US, which is so statistically insignificant that we can reasonably call it 0%. That means ebola doesn't kill people".

Do you understand, now, how absurd your position is?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Racist, too?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Oh my goodness you can't even follow basic thought experiments that a child wouldn't have difficulty with.

It's also really telling that - in your own (stupid) hypothetical, that you came up with yourself - you consider the deaths of white people more important than the genocide of an entire race of non-white people. Even your imagination festers with white supremacy.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

U.S. police officers shoot three times as many unarmed Black people as unarmed white people relative to their population size, according to a study published Wednesday on what researchers termed a "public health emergency".

"Relative to population size"? Talk about using fake numbers.

How about "relative to police contact"? That would be the meaningful number for a comparison. Unless you assume that everybody in the population has a run-in with the police every day.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Strangerland

The right-wing cancel culture hates articles like this and want them silenced.

World upside down again? The conservative side might hate articles like this, seeing how they use fake numbers, but they are not asking to silence them. The current "cancel culture" is entirely a project of the left.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"Relative to population size"? Talk about using fake numbers.

It's actually a well-accepted and often used method of analysing how the police treats people of different races relative to their prevalence in the population. I'm sorry you don't like it because the results demonstrate widespread police racism, but the facts don't care about your feelings.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sneezy

It's actually a well-accepted and often used method of analysing how the police treats people of different races relative to their prevalence in the population

Nope, it is not. If you want to make this comparison, it has to be based on the number of contacts with the police, not just raw population numbers. Kind of sad one has to point that out.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Nope, it is not.

It is, actually.

If you want to make this comparison, it has to be based on the number of contacts with the police, not just raw population numbers.

No, it doesn't.

Kind of sad one has to point that out.

You're not "pointing something out" so much as you are "making something up".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites