zlacker

Laws are disproportionately overenforced on black communities. Your numbers are collected after a large amount of the bias is already baked in and collected by the people perpetrating the bias. Maybe that didn't occur to you.

You're just asking questions right?

>>danhar+(OP)
How do the numbers shake out if we consider only homicides, where selective enforcement should be less of a factor?

>>danhar+(OP)
I welcome more data that has less sampling bias, but without some attempt to quantify the amount of sampling bias here we don’t know if it has a big impact on this data.

>>leeree+x1
This is the report for homicides (a different table from the one in the root comment that tracks arrests): https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Furthermore, this data is from reports not arrests. So selective enforcement is not a factor.

>>manfre+L2
The post above cites "arrests (all crimes) a year", not reports.

>>randyr+y1
It's presupposing a negligible effect of racial bias on arrest data. That's a very good reason to not use it in showing a negligible effect of racial bias on another scenario involving police. I'm struggling to think of a better example of a circular argument.

>>randyr+y1
It is on you if you don't take the testimony of hundreds of thousands of black people that they're terrorized by the police as evidence of possible police brutality.

Does that sound absurd? Is it as absurd as presuming the police would incriminate themselves with the data they create?

All evidence you can gather will be indirect. You make your judgment based on which you consider relevant.