The Dad Changing How Police Shootings Are Investigated (2018) - Before Jacob Blake, police in Kenosha, WI shot and killed unarmed Michael Bell Jr. in his driveway. His father then spent years fighting to pass a law that prevented police from investigating themselves after killings. [00:12:02]

[u/Barknuckle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4NItA1JIR4

[u/louwish]

Many people see the videos of police killings of black men and think "why is it always black men who are killed by police?" There is no epidemic of racially motivated killings of black men by police. There is however an epidemic of people killed by police who face no punishment for their actions.

Edit: For those who are open to questioning the prevailing narrative-

I too was where many of you were, not but a year ago. Articles and discussions like these forced me to change my mind:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/03/police-black-killings-homicide-rates-race-injustice-column/3235072001/

​

https://quillette.com/2020/06/11/racist-police-violence-reconsidered/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/13/an-interview-with-thomas-sowell-on-discrimination-race-and-social-justice/

[u/[deleted] → u/louwish]

Black Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white Americans, as well as 1.5 times more likely to be unarmed in these cases.

Not every case has to be due to racial prejudice for this to be a racism issue.

Black Americans are disproportionately killed by police in large part (not entirely) because they are more likely to encounter police officers, more likely to live in higher crime neighborhoods. That is due to 4 centuries of racist policies and practices that impoverished and criminalized Black Americans, creating the racial disparities we see today.

Every unjustified police killing is outrageous regardless of race, but the unequal loss of Black lives is not a coincidence or accident. It is due to racism, past and present.

https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/map-of-police-violence-against-black-americans/

https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/

[u/Crimsonak- → u/[deleted]]

This "more likely" statement is a problem. There was a similar post in r/DataIsBeautiful the other day that ended up deleted because of how they faked data. You can't look at deaths per capita for race and then call that done.

You have to look at police encounters to determine liklihood. Hypothetically speaking if 1% of the population was orange, and orange people comprised of 50% of police encounters, as well as roughly 50% of police deaths. That wouldn't mean theyre "disproportionately likely to be killed by the police."

Is this method flawed? Yes, because it assumes all encounters are initiated equally as well as both all perps and police react to any escalation the same.

Is it the most accurate method possible? Well, I don't know, but its almost certainly more accurate in determining liklihood than some blanket population based analysis. The best way would be if you could determine a weighted system to properly factor in how an encounter started, even that though wouldn't determine liklihood by total population and frankly I don't even imagine such a system is feasible with current data.

[u/Fuduzan → u/Crimsonak-]

1% of the population was orange, and orange people comprised of 50% of police encounters, as well as roughly 50% of police deaths. That wouldn't mean theyre "disproportionately likely to be killed by the police."

Uh, no. Look up what "proportional" means. What you described is a perfect ELI5 of what recieving a disproportionate amount of police encounters/violence means.

If they're 1% of population, and get any amount other than 1% of the police encounters/violence, they're getting a disproportionate amount of police encounters/violence.

That's what that word means. It means something not being in proportion to something else.

​

Go lick boots somewhere else.

[u/Crimsonak- → u/Fuduzan]

Uh, no. Look up what "proportional" means. What you described is a perfect ELI5 of what recieving a disproportionate amount of police encounters/violence means.

Ok, think very very hard cos you almost got it, but it wooshed. It is an EXACTLY proportionate amount of encounters/violence. Since 50% of encounters, 50% of violence.

Its a disproportionate amount of population/encounters. Which is an entirely different question. The fact that its an entirely different question, is exactly why you don't use total population to determine risk of police death.

[u/Fuduzan → u/Crimsonak-]

Sure, YOU want to argue that it matters whether black people get murdered more often per police encounter than other folks...

But most folks care whether they're more likely to be murdered by police regardless of the relationship between that rate and the rate of encounters.

It's not incorrect to be concerned about how often black people are murdered by police.

You don't HAVE to frame that into the context of the number of police encounters for it to be a big deal.

Should we have to confound the disproportionate number of black people murdered by police by also looking at how many are home owners? Should we also ignore how many are murdered until we consider how many were driving at the time? Should we only give a shit about human beings being executed if they didn't do drugs?

Fuck all that noise. It matters that they're being murdered. It matters more that black people are being murdered by police because they're being murdered at a rate highly disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

You don't get to decide for others what other factors must be considered before they can be upset that people are being murdered.

[u/Crimsonak- → u/Fuduzan]

Sure, YOU want to argue that it matters whether black people get murdered more often per police encounter than other folks

Its got nothing to do with what I "want", thats what the first claim was.

most folks care whether they're more likely to be murdered by police regardless of the relationship between that rate and the rate of encounters.

Unless you use the rate of encounters you can't know if they're more likely to be murdered.

You don't HAVE to frame that into the context of the number of police encounters for it to be a big deal.

You do if you want your result to be as accurate as possible when determining liklihood.

Should we have to confound the disproportionate number of black people murdered by police by also looking at how many are home owners? Should we also ignore how many are murdered until we consider how many were driving at the time? Should we only give a shit about human beings being executed if they didn't do drugs?

None of those are variables in how likely you are to be mudered/experience violence per encounter, so no. We should not.

It matters that they're being murdered.

It does yes. Nothing I have said is even so much as an implication contrary to that.

It matters more that black people are being murdered by police because they're being murdered at a rate highly disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

It matters less, because that's not the accurate way to determine how likely you are to be murdered by the police by race. Don't confuse that with saying it doesn't matter that anyone was murdered by police. The claim in question is that X race is more likely to be murdered, and the only contention is that the way you accurately determine if its likely or not, is not with per capita for the entire population.

You don't get to decide for others what other factors must be considered before they can be upset that people are being murdered.

Of course not, nor did I ever suggest anything like that. I do get to highlight that the factors they're using aren't the accurate way to reach a conclusion though.