Detailed statistics are kept for all deaths that involve police in this country since roughly 2015, and they are enlightening for anyone willing to actually look at them.
I've been trying to show the Roland Fryer study on police violence and deaths to people for years now. Tellingly, progressives rarely want to see the data. They nearly always refuse to look.
This is strange behavior for someone invested in a policy issue. You would think they would want as much information as possible, if only to rebut their opponents' arguments. This only makes sense if the issue (and the emotions it arouses) are instrumental-a tool to win power or make change. That would then indicate that the real details (and victims) of police deaths aren't the main focus. I know 3 people who have been killed by police. None were black (although one was Dominican). What does BLM or its agitators care about these people, or most of the other people affected by this problem?
Changing the system was the main concern of BLM. Truthfully many of the believers would be willing to see thousands of black men die to accomplish their goal. This is obvious when you consider the much larger problem of intraracial murders... totally unremarked-upon.
That's the craziest part. As you say - totally unremarked upon. Any - ANY - other scenario which was the cause of that much destruction in a single community would be nonstop news and a top political priority, but that one is just glossed over by advocates who shout racism at the mere mention of it.
Of course there are myriad underlying factors which contribute to the high numbers of civilian murders as well, many which are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to stem from racism. But the point of the article, and the entire book from which it's adapted, is not to deny such issues but to balance them out with life's practical applications.
If you, or any other readers, are interested in a more expansive perspective, the full book can be found here:
The math/stats are skewed. If you want to compare the likelihood that a Black man will be killed by a police officer v. the likelihood the same Black man will be killed by another Black man, you have to calculate it as a function of population. Thus - likelihood to be killed by cop: 220/675,000 (number of sworn police officers in the US) = .00325. Likelihood to be killed by fellow Black male: 7,614/19,830,000 (population of black males in US - could be slightly skewed, as this number likely includes male children) = .000383. This produces an 18 percent greater incidence of the latter than the former - far lower than the 35 to 1 you cite. And then if you factor in frequency of encounters w/ fellow Black males v. frequency of encounters w/ police, the difference would shrink even further.
Respectfully disagree, because the populations of police and black people are integrated. Meaning any concerns about becoming a murder VICTIM don't exist in separate vacuums (if I lived in a place with police but no black people, the odds would be this, as opposed to if I lived where there were only black people but no police, the odds would be that). Rather, those concerns occur in a population which includes both demographics (I live in a world with both police and black people, and these are the odds in that society as a whole).
Your interpretation would be accurate when describing the killers, not the victims. You can certainly say that black people, per capita, are not 35x more likely than police to KILL somebody, which is completely true (though police, by the nature of their jobs, are significantly more prone to be in situations which require the use of deadly force). But as victims, they are in fact 35x more likely to BE KILLED by black perpetrators than by police.
So the article is not an indictment of black people as a whole, as if they are inherently violent, which seems to be what you are defending - the book devotes much perspective about that, and it is certainly not what I think. What the article does try to illuminate is how a real and significant problem is perpetually obscured by people who wave what appears to be a shinier toy - but which has no substance - in front of everyone, while misrepresenting their comparative effects on black society.
If anyone can't see how screwed up that is, they need to check their indoctrination and personal feelings at the door and do some research.
I've been trying to show the Roland Fryer study on police violence and deaths to people for years now. Tellingly, progressives rarely want to see the data. They nearly always refuse to look.
This is strange behavior for someone invested in a policy issue. You would think they would want as much information as possible, if only to rebut their opponents' arguments. This only makes sense if the issue (and the emotions it arouses) are instrumental-a tool to win power or make change. That would then indicate that the real details (and victims) of police deaths aren't the main focus. I know 3 people who have been killed by police. None were black (although one was Dominican). What does BLM or its agitators care about these people, or most of the other people affected by this problem?
Changing the system was the main concern of BLM. Truthfully many of the believers would be willing to see thousands of black men die to accomplish their goal. This is obvious when you consider the much larger problem of intraracial murders... totally unremarked-upon.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-best-study-of-race-and-police
That's the craziest part. As you say - totally unremarked upon. Any - ANY - other scenario which was the cause of that much destruction in a single community would be nonstop news and a top political priority, but that one is just glossed over by advocates who shout racism at the mere mention of it.
Of course there are myriad underlying factors which contribute to the high numbers of civilian murders as well, many which are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to stem from racism. But the point of the article, and the entire book from which it's adapted, is not to deny such issues but to balance them out with life's practical applications.
If you, or any other readers, are interested in a more expansive perspective, the full book can be found here:
smashwords.com/books/view/1184004
Reviews for it can be found here:
Wrong Speak - https://www.wrongspeakpublishing.com/p/why-cant-white-men-talk-about-race?utm_source=publication-search
OnLine Book Club - https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=392712
Thanks for your input, James.
ZL
The math/stats are skewed. If you want to compare the likelihood that a Black man will be killed by a police officer v. the likelihood the same Black man will be killed by another Black man, you have to calculate it as a function of population. Thus - likelihood to be killed by cop: 220/675,000 (number of sworn police officers in the US) = .00325. Likelihood to be killed by fellow Black male: 7,614/19,830,000 (population of black males in US - could be slightly skewed, as this number likely includes male children) = .000383. This produces an 18 percent greater incidence of the latter than the former - far lower than the 35 to 1 you cite. And then if you factor in frequency of encounters w/ fellow Black males v. frequency of encounters w/ police, the difference would shrink even further.
Respectfully disagree, because the populations of police and black people are integrated. Meaning any concerns about becoming a murder VICTIM don't exist in separate vacuums (if I lived in a place with police but no black people, the odds would be this, as opposed to if I lived where there were only black people but no police, the odds would be that). Rather, those concerns occur in a population which includes both demographics (I live in a world with both police and black people, and these are the odds in that society as a whole).
Your interpretation would be accurate when describing the killers, not the victims. You can certainly say that black people, per capita, are not 35x more likely than police to KILL somebody, which is completely true (though police, by the nature of their jobs, are significantly more prone to be in situations which require the use of deadly force). But as victims, they are in fact 35x more likely to BE KILLED by black perpetrators than by police.
So the article is not an indictment of black people as a whole, as if they are inherently violent, which seems to be what you are defending - the book devotes much perspective about that, and it is certainly not what I think. What the article does try to illuminate is how a real and significant problem is perpetually obscured by people who wave what appears to be a shinier toy - but which has no substance - in front of everyone, while misrepresenting their comparative effects on black society.
If anyone can't see how screwed up that is, they need to check their indoctrination and personal feelings at the door and do some research.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
ZL
Just sharing: Person of Color are Just Three Words to Say Nigger
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/person-of-color-are-just-three-words
Excellent article, Torrance. Gets right to the heart of much of my motivation when I wrote my book. ZL
Can you please clarify.
In one paragraph it states that 220/ year in another 20/ year.
Thank you
I think the number of 20 refers to unarmed blacks, and 220 refers to all blacks.
You are correct, roughly 20 unarmed and 220 in total.