Your statistics on crime rates are severely skewed as they reflect Convictions, and it is well known, and acknowledged, that blacks are more likely to be convicted of more serious charges (not necessarily crimes!) while whites are more often plea-bargained or let off with lighter sentences.
In addition, the protests are about black men being pulled off the streets (TARGETED) for "being black" and then killed because, in the case of Floyd, he was SUPPOSEDLY trying to pass a counterfeit $20. Which as far as I know would not draw a death sentence in any venue. Not about Convictions in any way, shape, or form.Theses types of deaths should never happen, anywhere, anytime!!!!
Your disingenuous arguments, and the entire article (replete with "ASSumptions" ), is not germane to the protests....but you knew that already, didn't you......

Jeez this is racist. Did you ever think that the black incarceration rate has anything to do with why there are more black people arrested for violent crime than whites? According to the Census Bureau, Blacks make up only 13.4% of the population, but according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, they make up 38.3% of the prison population. Whites, on the other hand, make up 76.3% of the population, but only 57.8% of the prison population. [census.gov] [bop.gov]
I could go on to quote the many studies the media are using to come to their very justified conclusions, but it's clear you're not interested. Many sociological studies demonstrate that because of how statistics are collected patch-work style in the U.S. it is difficult to make statistically valid conclusions about any race committing significantly more violent crime than any other, yet black people are disproportionately policed & imprisoned. Also, studies show that blacks are disproportionately the VICTIM of violent crimes. But, in 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender’s race was “unknown” in 29.1 per cent of cases. That is not a huge difference. [channel4.com] "The Media" actually bothers to conduct thorough research.

So you aren't going to include facts like black people make up 13.6% of the population of America, while white people make up 67.4%? Because that fucking matters quite a goddamn lot. So, you want statistics? Cool. Here's some.

1. even if cops kill twice as many white people as they do black people, since white people make up 5X the population, that means that black people are being killed at 3X the rate of white people per capita. A 2018 study in the American Journal of Public Health found the mortality rate by police per 100,000 was 1.9 to 2.4 for black men, 0.8 to 1.2 for Hispanic men and 0.6 to 0.7 for white men.
2. If your statistics were true, then why the fuck aren't white people marching in the streets against police brutality against them too?
3. This article is racist as fuck and you make me fucking sick.
4. Everybody is gonna see you for the fucked up racist bigot you are now. Good job
5. You are shit at math and don't understand statistics
6. You obviously didn't do a damn bit of actual research before writing this.

I literally fear more for my black law abiding cousins more than I do for any law breaking white friends I have.

They are more apt to be pulled over for 'driving while black' and a host of other nonsense. Simply due to skin color. Despite being utterly law abiding.

And how about how the system rigged itself so more blacks got put in Prisons for ridiculous crimes like having weed on them? Like that hasn't been a white conspiracy to put poor black folks in prison and to earn money off their backs. Both by having them in prison and by their labor!

This is one of the most racist things I've ever read here.

You numbers are skewed. Either side can pull figures to suit themselves we've seen it time and again.

Simple answer:

YES!!!

You are completely ignoring the context of the killings.
In many cases the black person having been shot has been doing nothing more than driving a car, all be it one the policeman who killed them has judged to be too "nice" to be being driven by a black person and is therefore in a situation to be considered "suspicious".
I have been myself stopped like this, but only when traveling in a car, or when walking the street with my friend and colleague Courtney, who I have known since the age of 12 and who was born on the Island on St. Vincent.
Apparently a white man walking or driving with a black man needs to be checked upon, just in case he is under duress.
White people shot and killed are usually already in the act of, or have been caught immediately after committing a criminal act far in excess of driving while in possession of a larger than expected amount of melanin

“I believe it is to maintain the false narrative that black men are especially in danger from (mostly white) police.”
“We must also be careful to examine the facts that underlie our beliefs so not to be cause of more suffering.”

• Admin

.

OK, Mr.Admin, let’s do some careful examining. You have used statistics to try to indicate that
“the number of chances that blacks get involved with the police (while doing violent things)” is greater than that of whites.
But you stop short of telling us what you believe the cause is. Let’s go ahead and finish your article. If it is truth you are after, let’s trace the chain of cause and effect all the way to ground.

If it is true that blacks come into contact with police more often than whites, what are the possible causes of that? What do you believe?

Do you believe blacks are genetically more predisposed to violence? What do you believe drives this elevated statistic of police encounters? And what are the statistics, facts, and scientifically derived data upon which you base your belief?

“If we stop here, as the Washington Post does, we only know half of the story. What they (purposely) don't say are the ratio of crime by race! (why?)”

Why indeed. Are you saying blacks commit more crime because of their race? Have you (purposely?) not said why you believe that is the case? Let’s not stop here. Let’s finish the rational investigation.

I’m here to learn. I don’t want to be led by a corrupt corporate media, or mass hysteria, into believing something that isn’t supported by facts. I’m open to hearing new information, no matter how un-PC it might be, as long as it’s supported by adequate evidence.

Please finish filling in the evidence. What verifiable facts support the idea that humans of African descent are inherently more inclined to lives of crime, as opposed to just responding as any human would to hundreds of years of discrimination, oppression, slavery, beatings, rape and murder?

Greetings Earthling ... On my planet, we don't have black and white citizens.. They are yellow and blue.. But we suffered similar issues as you.. You see, the yellows were 1000 strong while the blues only numbered 100. Every week, 20 yellows and 10 blues were killed or murdered for various reasons.. Our statisticians said everything was OK, there was no bias or discrimination involved.. We foolishly believed these numbers... Ten weeks later, the blue citizens were extinct while there were still 800 yellows.. Only yellows.. And magically, the daily killings stopped... For the yellows had no one else to hate... Three days later, the statisticians were arrested and sentenced to life in prison for falsifying the numbers, also called cooking the books..

Have a nice day Earthling..

Yes it's true at least3 times more

Your argument rests on the claim that blacks are more likely to commit crime. You do acknowledge that poverty is a factor is this. I don't disagree with you so far. In every country, the lower class commits more ordinary crime (as opposed to white collar theft and corruption).

• However one glaring flaw in your argument is this. The same party that is accused of unnecessary racist killing (the police) is the one that is determining that a crime has been committed and needs to be policed. Do you for a moment doubt that blacks are aggressively over-policed? If so you are ignoring the testimony of whites and blacks who have attested to this. You are ignoring the repeatedly racist comments made by police and their membership in racist organizations. Repeatedly picking on blacks for chickenshit nonsense leads to resistance which leads to blacks being shot - the desired outcome by some cops.

• But even worse that that, you are ignoring the totally innocent blacks that are killed, like 12-year old Tamir Rice. Can you point to a white kid like that killed by the cops? Can you point to a white woman like Sandra Bland who was taken to prison simply because she answered the cop affirmatively that she didn't like being stopped? Taken to prison and ending up dead? Can you point to a white man like Stephon Clark shot in his grandma's yard for having a cellphone?

• You are also ignoring the history of policing in the South. After the Civil War, harvest time somehow providentially produced a spate of criminality in blacks leading to them having to work for free in chain gangs for the former plantation master. This now exists in private prisons that need to be filled with inmates that work for a dollar a day. The post-Civil War, racially-targeted policing set the tone for the policing that we see today. (The songs Chain Gang and Midnight Special refer to this policing that ended up creating a new slavery.)

Johnathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels ridiculed your post's type of ivory tower theorizing that ignored the all facts on the ground. George Bernard Shah could have been referring to your study when he said, "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics."

You wield the study you cite like Christians and Muslims waving their holy books. Engaging in supposed rational analysis without all the relevant evidence is just as rational as their expansive religious claims based on fragments of dimly remembered and distorted history.

Well said. brave of you to stand in the face of hysterical taboo. this is NOT "the land of the free or the home of the brave"

The problem I find with both the narrative discussed and the article is the concept of race itself. Race is an artificial distinction - it "has no genetic basis" (http://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm). It is a social construct into which persons often self-classify (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_categorization%29?wprov=sfla1 - please note the frequent references and lack of issues), which "Today, scientists consider such biological essentialism obsolete and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits. " (same as above).

As a social construct it is defined in specific cases by group agreement and that groups common perceptions of the traits of a specific race(https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/social_construct). Thus it's defined by police when they say "white male on foot" or "black male holding a gun". It is assumed that the subject would identify in the same way, although they are not asked. It follows that where race is reported and crime is reported the reporters perceptions of race would skew his report. If the reporter belongs to a group (e.g. police) whose definition of a particular race (e.g. African American) includes a propensity for violent behavior then, when defining the individual's race, he will be simultaneously making unwarranted assumptions that would lead escalation and violence. This would lead to it being reported in official channels, further ensuring the perceptions by which the reporting group delineates its racial classification.

The entire narrative of "race" has historical roots in the justifications of one group to subjugate another (https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/The-history-of-the-idea-of-race). We all belong to the human race, and as long as our society upholds ideas of racial essentialism and behavioral differences we will be encouraging division. Division that is rooted in our subjective (mis)perceptions of fundamental behavioral differences. The problem exists here - some see a victim and others see an aggressor. But we must keep in mind that it's often those seeing an aggressor, at least historically seeing one, that are holding guns and making reports.

1992
In my car at night, nine months preggers, lying down on the front seat; hubby driving.

Police lights flash. Cop comes up, flashlight in Hubby’s face.

Hubby asks why he was pulled over. Cop says the license plate light was out.

I sit up and tell cop that since the car was mine, I was going to get out and he was going to show me.

Cop sees that I am white, tells us we can go.

2010
White BF is driving my car. My son is in the back seat, me in the passenger seat. Sports car with rear louvers.

Cop asks for his id. I ask why he was pulled over. Cop leans in to look at me. Sees my son in the back seat. Asks him for his id. My 17 year old son. My 17 year old, Black son.

2020
Son’s girlfriend driving her car. Son in passenger seat.

Police lights flash. Son’s GF pulls over. Cops go to both sides. Ask Son for id first.

#becauseIhaveablackson

"This means that police are not disproportionately killing Blacks as the shooting rate per-capita disparity is more than accounted for by the number of chances that blacks get involved with the police (while doing violent things)"

Nice try, but like most initial premises that are wrong so is yours...there is ZERO correlation between the people committing violent crimes and the unarmed black people killed by police. If there was, those black people would most likely be armed. But it is fun to try and twist the numbers to back up your premise isn't it? Basically what you're saying is that since black people commit more violent crimes it's ok to shoot them regardless of the circumstances. Seven times in the back is also probably the proportionate number of times to be shot based on some per capita figures you can come up with. But you got your magazine piece! Congrats!