Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[PointOfViewGun]

So now Frederick Douglass's name has been added to the list of statues that must come down:
https://michaelsavage.com/eating-the...hester-speech/
This speaks to the level of education of the "protesters". It's clear that our education system has failed. Either that, or this isn't at all about "black lives matter".

Are you assuming the statue was taken down by the BLM protesters or you have some knowledge about the case that we don't have?

[Muizer]

Hmm, I can't find any reference to who might have done it.

[Forward Observer]

Your source itself indicates that the definition of "unarmed" is being used too broadly. An actual study says this:

Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force by Law Enforcement

Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites. Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than white (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims.



Black victims were significantly more likely to be unarmed than white or Hispanic victims. Black victims were also significantly less likely than whites to have posed an immediate threat to LE.



Relatedly, studies of “shooter bias” have found that both civilians and LE officers showed a greater tendency to shoot unarmed black men than white men in computer simulations.

The very first excerpt that you quote from the almost decade old report has a math issue. I'm not surprised that you did not notice it, in your rushed and incoherent effort to discredit the info that I linked from the Wall Street Journal which originally came from the Washington Post.

Here are the percentages of armed and unarmed. Do you not see an issue? They add up to 113% Evidently the learned people who published this flawed report either can't add or made a typo.

If this report was peer reviewed as they claim then their peers never caught the error either

83% armed
14.8 black unarmed
9.4 white unarmed
5.8 Latino unarmed
113%

When I initially read those percentages I realized that they didn't add up, so I just naturally assumed that the last 3 were not percentages of those ethnicities that were both unarmed and killed, but that they were only typical percentages of those ethnicities unarmed that might be encountered but not killed. Then I noticed that all four percentages used the same term--victims.

Obviously, there is either typo in the numbers or conversely, they might have meant to use a term like: encountered suspects instead of "victims" for the last three percentages. That's the only other way that paragraph could possibly make any sense.

Regardless, there is absolutely no logic to your opening statement that the Post's definition of unarmed is being used too "broadly". That statement was a almost meaningless editorial statement made by the Wall Street Journal. Since the number of unarmed blacks was only 9 people out of just over 1,000 is it your contention that it should have been less?

In the second excerpt, they are just repeating the statement but without the questionable percentages only now they use the word more likely. If those percentages represent actual number of those killed then why would they use such a term
as more likely. Now, I have no reason to doubt the statement of a white suspect being more likely to be armed. I just don't think that it is now relative to the number of unarmed black versus whites that were reported killed in 2019. In this case correlation does not imply causation.

I'm not going to address the statement about computer animations since they should not have included it unless they had some verifiable data to report. It just useless anecdotal filler otherwise

Now, let's address the sources for the data on your linked report. Their stated main statistical source was the National Violent Death Reporting System. When I looked at the actual number of police homicides for the four years of 2009 to 2013, your report figured all of its data based on a grand total of 813 police killings for a 4 year period. If the Post has a report that has averaged 1000 police homicides for the 4 years starting in 2015, how could your report be so far off.

It turns out that the NVDRS system at the time the report was done was only made up information from 17 participating states. What that means is that they didn't have any actual real numbers for the entire country---since they were only using 34% of the states in the US. It's nothing but a sample size and since they have no control over which states were used it may not represent the country at all. The best they could have done with such incomplete data was to simply post percentage of various classes.

The Washington Post on the other hand is collecting real numbers for the whole country. Real numbers with a name, a date and relevant event data for each individual and they did it because of the admitted error inherent in any of the flaw reporting systems used by the CDC
and the FBI.

That's where the Washington Post's data really shines. The Washington Post is a news reporting agency with associated press ties to all newspapers in the US. Back in 2015, they realized that the FBI police homicide numbers were being way under reported--like by 50%. That's why your dated report couldn't rely on the FBI numbers and it's also why the Post decided to start their own database of police homicides. Their system is vastly more accurate than that of the FBI -- not to mention the totally flawed NVDRS report that your linked
report uses.

Your linked report also mentions that the FBI was planning to update their collection system by 2015. Unfortunately, according to the Post that had not did not happen in 2015 or even 2016. Since the Post is continuing with the police homicide data, they probably feel that the government data is still being under reported.

Finally, here is one of the concluding statements from your own linked report that simply mimics what both tgoodenow and I said right after you posted it.

This study has several limitations. First, NVDRS is not nationally representative;information is only available for the 17 states funded at the time. Second,NVDRS represents only mortality data; information about non-fatal injuries resulting from LE encounters is not included. It is unknown whether included incidents differ from LE encounters involving non-lethal or no force. Third, NVDRS relies solely on investigative information available from medical examiner and LE reports. These cases are unique because officers both inflict the fatal violence and are the key (and sometimes only) witnesses. The potential impact of this on investigative reports is unclear (e.g.,difficulties validating the information, redaction of information because of legal concerns).
Additional research in other jurisdictions is needed to better understand variations in officer response and identify hiring, management, or training policies that might reduce shooting risk. Finally, the current study utilizes data from 2009 to 2012 from 17 states; the findings may not represent the patterns or circumstances of deaths in more-recent years or nationally.

So, how do I now know more about the Post's data base. After visiting their web site again, I got a pop-up stating that I could have an online subscription for 4 weeks for only a dollar. That was cheap enough, so I subscribed. I already get the New York Times morning briefing, but maybe the W. Post will be more palpable and less Marxist than the NY Times. I balance these with a subscription to the Daily Wire which is conservative.

Anyway, here is the Washington Post's original 2015/16 mission statement from the 7 person team assigned to this project. All appear to be college grad journalists and have been with the Post from 5 to 18 years. I looked at the bio for each and all had from 1 to 4 credits for Pulitzer's won by the Post. In other words---no interns as you alluded to.

By Julie Tate , Jennifer Jenkins , Steven Rich , John Muyskens , Kennedy Elliott , Ted Mellnik and Aaron Williams

The Washington Post is compiling a database of every fatal shooting in the United States by a police officer in the line of duty since Jan. 1, 2015.

In 2015, The Post began tracking more than a dozen details about each killing — including the race of the deceased, the circumstances of the shooting, whether the person was armed and whether the person was experiencing a mental-health crisis — by culling local news reports, law enforcement websites and social media, and by monitoring independent databases such as Killed by Police and Fatal Encounters. The Post conducted additional reporting in many cases.

In 2016, The Post is gathering additional information about each fatal shooting by police that occurs this year and is filing open-records requests with departments. More than a dozen additional details are being collected about officers in each shooting. Officers’ names are being included in the database after The Post contacts the departments to request comment.

The Post is documenting only those shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian — the circumstances that most closely parallel the 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., which began the protest movement culminating in Black Lives Matter and an increased focus on police accountability nationwide.

The Post is not tracking deaths of people in police custody, fatal shootings by off-duty officers or non-shooting deaths.
The FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention log fatal shootings by police, but officials acknowledge that their data is incomplete. In 2015, The Post documented more than twice as many fatal shootings by police as had been recorded by the FBI. Last year, (2015) the FBI announced plans to overhaul how it tracks fatal police encounters.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can link their data. There appears to be licenses required to do so. It in an Excel type of format with 5438 lines of entries--one for each person killed starting 2015. It has their actual name then other info like race, age, sex, armed or not, type weapon, how they were killed, etc. However, unlike Excel, it doesn't seem to offer the ability to collate anything

In other words, this is just raw data with a total of the individuals, and since the current year is updating daily, it changes daily. Even 2019 has changed about 10 in total since the NYT did their piece. That's because the Post goes back and updates previous years if even an individual reports a death--so long as they can independently verify the information with the local news or police.

Below is a link to the most recent Washington Post article I could find that references the data. Being almost as dishonest as the Times, they put a spin on one of the charts--talking about the rates of blacks killed per million versus whites,i.e.,31 blacks per million versus 13 for whites which would be ratio of almost 2.4 to 1. However, they conveniently neglect to mention or discuss that the even worse ratio of violent crimes committed by these same two groups might have something to do with that. The Wall Street Journal article that I linked earlier using this exact same data approached it more honestly.

Here's the link. You may hit the paywall and then again you may not if it's your first time to visit. You might even get to access the source data, but it's not going to tell one much because it does not appear to be interactive and it would take a long time to collate manually.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ings-database/


Sorry to make this so long, but it was necessary to respond to someone who posts an out of date and flawed government report that he evidently didn't even understand or bother to analyze.

So it cost me a dollar to get to the Washington Post for a month--maybe I'll get my money's worth.

Cheers

[PointOfViewGun]

The very first excerpt that you quote from the almost decade old report has a math issue. I'm not surprised that you did not notice it, in your rushed and incoherent effort to discredit the info that I linked from the Wall Street Journal which originally came from the Washington Post.
Here are the percentages of armed and unarmed. Do you not see an issue? They add up to 113% Evidently the learned people who published this flawed report either can't add or made a typo.
If this report was peer reviewed as they claim then their peers never caught the error either
83% armed
14.8 black unarmed
9.4 white unarmed
5.8 Latino unarmed
113%
When I initially read those percentages I realized that they didn't add up, so I just naturally assumed that the last 3 were not percentages of those ethnicities that were both unarmed and killed, but that they were only typical percentages of those ethnicities unarmed that might be encountered but not killed. Then I noticed that all four percentages used the same term--victims.
Obviously, there is either typo in the numbers or conversely, they might have meant to use a term like: encountered suspects instead of "victims" for the last three percentages. That's the only other way that paragraph could possibly make any sense.

This is embarrassing... Those percentages are not meant to be added together. They're representation of unarmed individuals in their sub-groups. 14.8% of black people shot by cops were unarmed. 9.4% of white people shot by cops were unarmed. 5.8% of Latinos shot by cops were unarmed. They are percentages from each ethnic group of people that were shot death by a cop. There is no typo...

Regardless, there is absolutely no logic to your opening statement that the Post's definition of unarmed is being used too "broadly". That statement was a almost meaningless editorial statement made by the Wall Street Journal. Since the number of unarmed blacks was only 9 people out of just over 1,000 is it your contention that it should have been less?

So, me pointing out that the Wall Street Journal calls the use of the term "unarmed" by the Washington Post too broad because they included cases where the suspect was actually armed to have no logic? Not much I can say against that. With such standards there is really no point in discussing this issue with you.

[Forward Observer]

This is embarrassing... Those percentages are not meant to be added together. They're representation of unarmed individuals in their sub-groups. 14.8% of black people shot by cops were unarmed. 9.4% of white people shot by cops were unarmed. 5.8% of Latinos shot by cops were unarmed. They are percentages from each ethnic group of people that were shot death by a cop. There is no typo...

So, me pointing out that the Wall Street Journal calls the use of the term "unarmed" by the Washington Post too broad because they included cases where the suspect was actually armed to have no logic? Not much I can say against that. With such standards there is really no point in discussing this issue with you.

I understand now what those percentages are now, but why would they present them the way they did in a single paragraph at the start of the report without saying what they were? It's not embarrassing, it's just confusing and poorly worded.

However, the two biggest flaws with the report is the fact that it's not only outdated, it also used highly incomplete under-reported data from only 17 states---states that might not represent a good cross section.

I also misread the WSJ statement about the gun in the during a car chase thinking it said they included it as armed, when it really said they considered it as unarmed. This appears to be an outlier since there was only one such example for 2019. Still, I made my statement based simply on misreading the sentence. However, this information is included in the report, so anyone else besides the Post could easily present the data using their definitions of armed and unarmed.

To repeat, I also understand what the percentages stated for the ethnic groups are, but still can't fathom why the authors presented it in the same paragraph as the armed percentage and in exactly the same terms with no other references except a chart way much later on in the report

Now, I've done the correct thing and admitted I misread the WSJ statement and have also addressed the confusing way that the unarmed percentages were stated.

However, I made a lot more salient points both about the outdated and flawed report you were promoting as actual numbers. (note it was not in any way worth our attention due to the old and incomplete source data gleaned from only 17 states.) while at the same time you denigrated and made biased and false assumptions about the infinitely more current and comprehensive data from the Washington Post. I have no idea why unless you didn't like the results.

It's pretty obvious why you are claiming foul and that you are through. It has little to do with my erroneous misreading of the statement from the WSJ. I've conceded that error. Conceding errors is what honest debaters do.

[PointOfViewGun]

I understand now what those percentages are now, but why would they present them the way they did in a single paragraph at the start of the report without saying what they were? It's not embarrassing, it's just confusing and poorly worded.
However, the two biggest flaws with the report is the fact that it's not only outdated, it also used highly incomplete under-reported data from only 17 states---states that might not represent a good cross section.
I also misread the WSJ statement about the gun in the during a car chase thinking it said they included it as armed, when it really said they considered it as unarmed. This appears to be an outlier since there was only one such example for 2019. Still, I made my statement based simply on misreading the sentence. However, this information is included in the report, so anyone else besides the Post could easily present the data using their definitions of armed and unarmed.
To repeat, I also understand what the percentages stated for the ethnic groups are, but still can't fathom why the authors presented it in the same paragraph as the armed percentage and in exactly the same terms with no other references except a chart way much later on in the report
Now, I've done the correct thing and admitted I misread the WSJ statement and have also addressed the confusing way that the unarmed percentages were stated.
However, I made a lot more salient points both about the outdated and flawed report you were promoting as actual numbers. (note it was not in any way worth our attention due to the old and incomplete source data gleaned from only 17 states.) while at the same time you denigrated and made biased and false assumptions about the infinitely more current and comprehensive data from the Washington Post. I have no idea why unless you didn't like the results.
It's pretty obvious why you are claiming foul and that you are through. It has little to do with my erroneous misreading of the statement from the WSJ. I've conceded that error. Conceding errors is what honest debaters do.

The numbers are provided like that as they indicate representation within a racial group. You can easily compare them against each other. If the numbers indicated the number of unarmed people from a particular group compared to the general populace then you couldn't compare them without normalizing for the demographic representation for each group. Given that the quote I provided was from the Results sections its wording was proper. You just didn't check the text to see it greater detail. The study includes 17 states because it was those states that participated CDC's data collection. A study that covers 2012 latest about racial issues isn't really outdated either. We're not comparing 1950s with 2020.

The Wall Street Journal provides one example of broad use but that doesn't mean there is only one. I have no access to Washing Post's data, nor I have the desire to check every single case whether the victim was really unarmed or not. It renders their analysis useless.

I will shed some light on one more thing. You indicated that only 9 unarmed black men were shot dead in 2019.

Fact check: Police killed more unarmed Black men in 2019 than conservative activist claimed

Kirk cites the Post's database, which includes only people shot by police, not killed through other means like beating or tasering. He also cites a database that is incomplete. The number of unarmed Black men fatally shot by police is likely higher than the Post's count due to a lack of comprehensive police records, which Kirk does not acknowledge. Despite these issues, the Post's database shows police fatally shot 13 unarmed black men in 2019, not eight.

This data does not include “deaths of people in police custody, fatal shootings by off-duty officers or non-shooting deaths.”

The Post’s data shows police fatally shot 13 unarmed Black men in 2019, five more people than Kirk claimed. Also, police fatally shot an unarmed Black woman, Atatiana Jefferson, 28, on Oct. 12 in Fort Worth Texas. But the Post's database covers only shootings. It does not include deaths caused by beating, tasering or vehicles. George Floyd’s died in police custody after a police officer knelt on his neck for several minutes, which would not have been included in the Post’s data set.

The Post regularly updates the database as information about cases is released, so it’s possible it showed eight unarmed Black male deaths instead of 13 at the time Kirk posted the video. It’s also possible the number will continue to rise as more information about deaths in 2019 comes to light.

[Forward Observer]

The numbers are provided like that as they indicate representation within a racial group. You can easily compare them against each other. If the numbers indicated the number of unarmed people from a particular group compared to the general populace then you couldn't compare them without normalizing for the demographic representation for each group. Given that the quote I provided was from the Results sections its wording was proper. You just didn't check the text to see it greater detail. The study includes 17 states because it was those states that participated CDC's data collection. A study that covers 2012 latest about racial issues isn't really outdated either. We're not comparing 1950s with 2020.

I've already admitted that I was thrown off by the poorly constructed report. Stating the percentage of the total for armed and then following that with 3 unarmed percentages from a totally different population in the same paragraph was a bit confusing. Personally, I think they did it that way so the percentages would simply look larger. And I did check the rest of the paragraph which did not reference those 3 percentages. They instead talked about sub group of a completely different set of percentages that had nothing to do with the 3 unarmed percentages quoted.

Here is the rest of the paragraph that was not copy pasted (probably for brevity) but I still see nothing explaining the 3 unarmed percentages they gave. It's all about other data. The explanation must be somewhere else in the report, but since I actually figured it out by doing the math using the numbers from one of the charts, I didn't bother to search any more.

Fatality rates among military veterans/active duty service members were 1.4 times greater than among their civilian counterparts. Four case subtypes were examined based on themes that emerged in incident narratives: about 22% of cases were mental health related; 18% were suspected “suicide by cop” incidents, with white victims more likely than black or Hispanic victims to die in these circumstances; 14% involved intimate partner violence; and about 6% were unintentional deaths due to LE action. Another 53% of cases were unclassified and did not fall into a coded subtype. Regression analyses identified victim and incident characteristics associated with each case subtype and unclassified cases.

Further more, a sample size of only 17 states (34% of the US) that couldn't be controlled at the time to represent an accurate cross section of the country is both problematic and outdated--regardless of the reasons. Consequently, I also strongly disagree with your statement a report for the years of 2009 to 2012 isn't dated and guess what---so did the people who published the report.

Once again, here is the publisher of the report's own warnings about the sample size being non representative and the report possibly being outdated. They further state that this could be due to the relatively large changes in police interaction with minorities after the Ferguson incident in 2014.

This study has several limitations. First, NVDRS is not nationally representative;information is only available for the 17 states funded at the time. Second,NVDRS represents only mortality data; information about non-fatal injuries resulting from LE encounters is not included. It is unknown whether included incidents differ from LE encounters involving non-lethal or no force. Third, NVDRS relies solely on investigative information available from medical examiner and LE reports. These cases are unique because officers both inflict the fatal violence and are the key (and sometimes only) witnesses. The potential impact of this on investigative reports is unclear (e.g.,difficulties validating the information, redaction of information because of legal concerns).
Additional research in other jurisdictions is needed to better understand variations in officer response and identify hiring, management, or training policies that might reduce shooting risk. Finally, the current study utilizes data from 2009 to 2012 from 17 states; the findings may not represent the patterns or circumstances of deaths in more-recent years or nationally.

Here were the states represented during the time frame of the report:

Data were available for Alaska; Colorado; Georgia; Kentucky; Maryland; Massachusetts; New Jersey; New Mexico; North Carolina; Oklahoma; Oregon; Rhode Island; South Carolina; Utah; Virginia; Wisconsin (2009–2012); and Ohio (2011–2012 only).

Totally missing are many of the states with large population centers.


If you want to argue or disagree with those warnings about the validity of a dated and non-population representative report, then you need to take that up with the CDC or the government organization hosting the report. Maybe they can enlighten you.


Next, on to the Washington Post data collection system.

The Wall Street Journal provides one example of broad use but that doesn't mean there is only one. I have no access to Washing Post's data, nor I have the desire to check every single case whether the victim was really unarmed or not. It renders their analysis useless.

I will shed some light on one more thing. You indicated that only 9 unarmed black men were shot dead in 2019.

Fact check: Police killed more unarmed Black men in 2019 than conservative activist claimed

Having the raw data doesn't make it useless. I took the time to manually add up the unarmed killed who were listed as black but it was done in less than 5 minutes. They do list a link to an external software program that would make this easy, but it's not free and I already have enough crap on my PC. I need that room for games that I may never play.

The count is indeed 13 at this point in time and not the 9 claimed by the WSJ nor the 8 claimed by some YouTube poster that I've never heard of. Obviously, either they made a mistake or as the USAtoday article points out they may have collected their date prior to an update. The WSJ article I originally found first is from June 2nd. Of course the WSJ could have modified the number based on a more conservative way of viewing the data also.

A couple of important points here. The Washington post is a left leaning publication while the Wall Street Journal tends to be more right of center.

As I joked before with the Mark Twain quote when I first linked the WSJ. I try to never totally trust the published statistics from a single source--especially if know they probably have a political bias.

I also found the particular event in Newark, N.J. that the WSJ based their criticism on. It was a car chase event that ended in the killing of one of the two occupants of the car.

A full news report about the final indictment of the officer involved is linked below, but an abridged version is that two officers in the same patrol car tried to make a traffic stop of a car after a 3rd unidentified officer had reported seeing a weapon. The two suspects took off in their car which had dark tinted windows. They slowed or stopped at an intersection. At this point the rookie cop passenger of the chase vehicle jumped out and pumped 3 rounds into the vehicle. The suspects sped away a again, but again slowed or stopped a second time. The excited rookie jumped out and pumped some more rounds into the car which fled again.

Finally, it came to stop while the rookie went to the passenger side and fired twice more through the passenger window. When the police finally open the doors, the driver was slumped over the wheel having been shot in the head. His passenger had been shot in the face. They were taken to a hospital where the driver died. The passenger, who eventually recovered, was charged with the possession of an illegal firearm. Both were Black.

Several months later, as officials looked at the bodycam recordings, they concluded that the officer who blindly shot into the suspect car--not only violated police procedures but also endangered the public. He was charged with manslaughter.

There was only one gun involved and it was in the possession of the passenger so he was charged with that. The Post chose to go with exactly how the charges were made and listed the driver as unarmed.

The link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/n...ing-death.html

The WSJ evidently disagreed with this and went to the trouble to muddy the water over it with what I consider to be a mostly off handed and unjust accusation of being to broad in how they define "unarmed".

However, just consider this. If the Wall Street Journal was so worried about how the Post interpreted their data. why in the world would they have used it for the foundational basis of their entire article. That alone was enough for me to question the criticism.

This one case is an outlier but I'm sure there are others. Still, this sort of stuff could come under a normal margin of error. The Post data sheet has a population of 5940 separate entries spanning 5.5 years.

It went up about 50 in total since I looked at it day before yesterday. It's a constantly updated living data base. By the way although the Post does not collect data on deaths that happen once in custody, they do include the listing tasers in addition to firearms as the cause of death. There stated goal was to collect data only on the shooting homicides by police which are by far the most common and probably the easiest to categorize.


On the other hand, your original linked report contains a total population of only 812 events covering all 4 years. I'm sure their intentions were scholarly, but that population is grossly understated by around 66% based on the incomplete list of states. It's also a dated static report but might have some use as incomplete historical data.

As far as your additional USA today link, it does little but show that the current Post numbers are different than what both a conservative Youtuber posted and also what the Wall Street Journal posted at earlier dates. Besides, it was not a fact check article on the data of the Post but was instead a fact check report on the data that the Youtube person presented. Since USA today actually admits that the error could be due to when the Youtube harvested the data, I'm not sure what their point was

However, the article still manages to make two false statement about the Post data. It states that they don't record tasers being used in police homicides which is not true since I saw this type of data with my own eyes. They also reported that a lady by the name of Atatianna Jefferson is not included in the Post data. That was easy to find just using the Google word search tool in the data bank. It's there and was reported as unarmed. USA was only correct in stating that George Floyd is not listed, but we already know that due to the post's stated criteria.

Anyway, to conclude---I find it bewildering that you can continue tout the obvious flawed (by it own stated admission) 2009 to 2013 report as the holy grail of information while trying to claim that the later data from the Post is somehow worthless or invalid by pointlessly clinging to what is at best either questionable criticism or outright false statements about said data by a couple of other newspapers. Here'a little hint but don't tell anybody else---our various forms of media outlets all make mistakes and sometimes even tell fibs about those mistakes. Sometime they just fib on purpose.

The only real debate that I can see is if the W. Post should expand their collection data to include deaths that occur in custody and or those committed by off duty cops. Those kinds of homicides can have a lot of difficult and complex factors to consider. Regardless, it's still probably the best data we have from 2015 through today.

[PointOfViewGun]

I've already admitted that I was thrown off by the poorly constructed report. Stating the percentage of the total for armed and then following that with 3 unarmed percentages from a totally different population in the same paragraph was a bit confusing. Personally, I think they did it that way so the percentages would simply look larger. And I did check the rest of the paragraph which did not reference those 3 percentages. They instead talked about sub group of a completely different set of percentages that had nothing to do with the 3 unarmed percentages quoted.
Here is the rest of the paragraph that was not copy pasted (probably for brevity) but I still see nothing explaining the 3 unarmed percentages they gave. It's all about other data. The explanation must be somewhere else in the report, but since I actually figured it out by doing the math using the numbers from one of the charts, I didn't bother to search any more.
Further more, a sample size of only 17 states (34% of the US) that couldn't be controlled at the time to represent an accurate cross section of the country is both problematic and outdated--regardless of the reasons. Consequently, I also strongly disagree with your statement a report for the years of 2009 to 2012 isn't dated and guess what---so did the people who published the report.
Once again, here is the publisher of the report's own warnings about the sample size being non representative and the report possibly being outdated. They further state that this could be due to the relatively large changes in police interaction with minorities after the Ferguson incident in 2014.
Here were the states represented during the time frame of the report:
Totally missing are many of the states with large population centers.
If you want to argue or disagree with those warnings about the validity of a dated and non-population representative report, then you need to take that up with the CDC or the government organization hosting the report. Maybe they can enlighten you.

As I pointed out before, the paragraph in question was from the Results section. It was a summary of the findings of the study. If you wanted to check you could easily check the rest of the study to get detailed information on those percentages. I didn't say you should have checked the rest of the paragraph. I was pointing at the study in its entirety. The study further explains the use of 17 states as having a racial make up similar to the rest of the USA. The study does indicate time frame of the cases as a limitation rightly so but that doesn't mean the study is outdated. They don't call it that either. Of course trends can change. They can change from year to year. That doesn't make them outdated. Just like its missing some population centers, it includes many others. There is more value in using a dataset that can be trusted compared to one that seems whole but full of holes.

I certainly don't need to take it up with CDC. You kinda do since you're the one trying to dismiss it just because it doesn't provide you the desired results.

Next, on to the Washington Post data collection system.
Having the raw data doesn't make it useless. I took the time to manually add up the unarmed killed who were listed as black but it was done in less than 5 minutes. They do list a link to an external software program that would make this easy, but it's not free and I already have enough crap on my PC. I need that room for games that I may never play.
The count is indeed 13 at this point in time and not the 9 claimed by the WSJ nor the 8 claimed by some YouTube poster that I've never heard of. Obviously, either they made a mistake or as the USAtoday article points out they may have collected their date prior to an update. The WSJ article I originally found first is from June 2nd. Of course the WSJ could have modified the number based on a more conservative way of viewing the data also.
A couple of important points here. The Washington post is a left leaning publication while the Wall Street Journal tends to be more right of center.
As I joked before with the Mark Twain quote when I first linked the WSJ. I try to never totally trust the published statistics from a single source--especially if know they probably have a political bias.
I also found the particular event in Newark, N.J. that the WSJ based their criticism on. It was a car chase event that ended in the killing of one of the two occupants of the car.
A full news report about the final indictment of the officer involved is linked below, but an abridged version is that two officers in the same patrol car tried to make a traffic stop of a car after a 3rd unidentified officer had reported seeing a weapon. The two suspects took off in their car which had dark tinted windows. They slowed or stopped at an intersection. At this point the rookie cop passenger of the chase vehicle jumped out and pumped 3 rounds into the vehicle. The suspects sped away a again, but again slowed or stopped a second time. The excited rookie jumped out and pumped some more rounds into the car which fled again.
Finally, it came to stop while the rookie went to the passenger side and fired twice more through the passenger window. When the police finally open the doors, the driver was slumped over the wheel having been shot in the head. His passenger had been shot in the face. They were taken to a hospital where the driver died. The passenger, who eventually recovered, was charged with the possession of an illegal firearm. Both were Black.
Several months later, as officials looked at the bodycam recordings, they concluded that the officer who blindly shot into the suspect car--not only violated police procedures but also endangered the public. He was charged with manslaughter.
There was only one gun involved and it was in the possession of the passenger so he was charged with that. The Post chose to go with exactly how the charges were made and listed the driver as unarmed.
The link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/n...ing-death.html
The WSJ evidently disagreed with this and went to the trouble to muddy the water over it with what I consider to be a mostly off handed and unjust accusation of being to broad in how they define "unarmed".
However, just consider this. If the Wall Street Journal was so worried about how the Post interpreted their data. why in the world would they have used it for the foundational basis of their entire article. That alone was enough for me to question the criticism.
This one case is an outlier but I'm sure there are others. Still, this sort of stuff could come under a normal margin of error. The Post data sheet has a population of 5940 separate entries spanning 5.5 years.
It went up about 50 in total since I looked at it day before yesterday. It's a constantly updated living data base. By the way although the Post does not collect data on deaths that happen once in custody, they do include the listing tasers in addition to firearms as the cause of death. There stated goal was to collect data only on the shooting homicides by police which are by far the most common and probably the easiest to categorize.
On the other hand, your original linked report contains a total population of only 812 events covering all 4 years. I'm sure their intentions were scholarly, but that population is grossly understated by around 66% based on the incomplete list of states. It's also a dated static report but might have some use as incomplete historical data.
As far as your additional USA today link, it does little but show that the current Post numbers are different than what both a conservative Youtuber posted and also what the Wall Street Journal posted at earlier dates. Besides, it was not a fact check article on the data of the Post but was instead a fact check report on the data that the Youtube person presented. Since USA today actually admits that the error could be due to when the Youtube harvested the data, I'm not sure what their point was
However, the article still manages to make two false statement about the Post data. It states that they don't record tasers being used in police homicides which is not true since I saw this type of data with my own eyes. They also reported that a lady by the name of Atatianna Jefferson is not included in the Post data. That was easy to find just using the Google word search tool in the data bank. It's there and was reported as unarmed. USA was only correct in stating that George Floyd is not listed, but we already know that due to the post's stated criteria.
Anyway, to conclude---I find it bewildering that you can continue tout the obvious flawed (by it own stated admission) 2009 to 2013 report as the holy grail of information while trying to claim that the later data from the Post is somehow worthless or invalid by pointlessly clinging to what is at best either questionable criticism or outright false statements about said data by a couple of other newspapers. Here'a little hint but don't tell anybody else---our various forms of media outlets all make mistakes and sometimes even tell fibs about those mistakes. Sometime they just fib on purpose.
The only real debate that I can see is if the W. Post should expand their collection data to include deaths that occur in custody and or those committed by off duty cops. Those kinds of homicides can have a lot of difficult and complex factors to consider. Regardless, it's still probably the best data we have from 2015 through today.

I didn't say having the raw data renders it useless. I said that having broad use of a term like "unarmed" makes their analysis useless. Their data is stained. There was a gun in the possession of the people that were fleeing from the police. Sure, the cop could have acted recklessly or maliciously. That doesn't really change the case. By your logic we should consider any person not pointing a gun at a cop as unarmed. If the person that was shot did not make a move towards the cop with his or her gun then he or she should be classified as unarmed. You wouldn't really like the results of that.

Classifying such a case as an outlier and then expressing that you're sure there are more like that is an oxymoron. You don't seem to understand the weight of each database. You even call one static as if it undermines its value. To the contrary. The CDC database is complete. If a case is not in that database then its a cover up. It takes years for cases like this to be unearthed. Thats what makes the Washington Post database unreliable. There could be many cases that haven't been filed yet from previous years. The case for Atatiana Jefferson could very well be added after USA Today pointed. I can not check your claims about other statements made by them on the database as I have no access to it.

The fundamental difference here is this: The CDC database and study is complete for the parameters it represents. The Washington Post data, on the other hand, is not complete or even accurate for the parameters it presents.

[Forward Observer]

There hardly any point in going any further with this--is there? You continue to repeat the same invalid points in spite of the all the evidence I have presented to the contrary. The CDC report is flawed and dated by it own admission, which I have posted two times now. It is Byzantine in it construction, but that is what I would expect from 3 PHD's who work for the government.

I showed the states used and they do not represent a cross section of the country as you falsely claim, they only represent the states that were participating at the time. The creators of this report had no choice in the matter. In fact one of the states--Ohio was only added half way through the report when they decide to participate. There are very few high population states in the list. The bottom line is that the publishers of the report actually state this in their critique of the report which you continue to ignore after I have included it two times.

Thus the outdated and fault ridden CDC report is probably full of errors that will never be identified or corrected. To claim otherwise is just being dishonest.

As to the most recent report, once again it is a living constantly updated set of data.

Your old report is static but it probably has mistakes in it. In other words, it also has outliers in it that will never be fixed. Since they don't include the individual cases that make up the population no one will ever know. This is not the case with the Post's data bank. I gave you the detail of one such case and referred to it as an outlier and then admitted there probably were others. This is not contradictory statement since there can exist more than one outlier as in outliers (plural) and it also doesn't mean that any other outliers will be exactly like the one i went to the trouble to research.

However, I knew what you meant by your totally incorrect use of the word Oxymoron. Below are examples of an Oxymoron.

It's a figure of speech that contradicts itself. Examples: deafening silence, clearly confused, act naturally, etc. Sometimes it is used satirically such as applying it to the term "military intelligence". My statement is not in any way a oxymoron even if it was contradictory, which it isn't as you falsely claim.

However, the Newark case as far as I'm concerned was pretty clear legally. Two men can not both be charged as armed if there is only one with gun. Since the authorities in the case charged the passenger as possessing an illegal firearm, they would not have charge unarmed driver if he had lived, but he happened to be the one killed. The Post got it right thus invalidating the false accusation by the Wall Street Journal. This only one case of 5940 which only amounts to a 00.01%. However, since the post got it correct IMHO, it is no longer to be considered an outlier. Once again I remind you that the newspaper who made this incorrect accusation was still basing their entire article on the Post's data so they evidently still trusted the data as reliable.

A single mistake in the old CDC report would amount to 1.2 percent. You are the one who doesn't seem to understand the difference in magnitude due to the minuscule population (812 cases) used in the old report versus the newer data (5940 cases all named) You are also incorrectly assuming that that the old report has no mistakes. There is no way to know for sure other than to take into consideration it's many faults as outlined by its own publishers. However, you just continue to ignore all of this.

If that old report is so good then why isn't it being used by anybody today. Hint: It isn't!. And all of your links to try to invalidate the new report tells us that most media outlets are using the Post data or are at least aware of it. I suspect it will gain more traction as time goes
on or at least until the FBI updates their collection process.

Once again, your denial of all of this concerning the old report while still trying to characterize the more current report as invalid would be simply mind boggling if weren't for the fact that this is SOP for you. You always are defending the indefensible through both the misrepresentation and omission of facts plus using some sort of pretzel logic to justify it--and when proved wrong, you just double down.

As my old man used say, you are the type who will climb a tree to tell a lie when you could have stood on the ground and told the truth.

[PointOfViewGun]

There hardly any point in going any further with this--is there? You continue to repeat the same invalid points in spite of the all the evidence I have presented to the contrary. The CDC report is flawed and dated by it own admission, which I have posted two times now. It is Byzantine in it construction, but that is what I would expect from 3 PHD's who work for the government.
I showed the states used and they do not represent a cross section of the country as you falsely claim, they only represent the states that were participating at the time. The creators of this report had no choice in the matter. In fact one of the states--Ohio was only added half way through the report when they decide to participate. There are very few high population states in the list. The bottom line is that the publishers of the report actually state this in their critique of the report which you continue to ignore after I have included it two times.
Thus the outdated and fault ridden CDC report is probably full of errors that will never be identified or corrected. To claim otherwise is just being dishonest.
As to the most recent report, once again it is a living constantly updated set of data.
Your old report is static but it probably has mistakes in it. In other words, it also has outliers in it that will never be fixed. Since they don't include the individual cases that make up the population no one will ever know. This is not the case with the Post's data bank. I gave you the detail of one such case and referred to it as an outlier and then admitted there probably were others. This is not contradictory statement since there can exist more than one outlier as in outliers (plural) and it also doesn't mean that any other outliers will be exactly like the one i went to the trouble to research.
However, I knew what you meant by your totally incorrect use of the word Oxymoron. Below are examples of an Oxymoron.
It's a figure of speech that contradicts itself. Examples: deafening silence, clearly confused, act naturally, etc. Sometimes it is used satirically such as applying it to the term "military intelligence". My statement is not in any way a oxymoron even if it was contradictory, which it isn't as you falsely claim.
However, the Newark case as far as I'm concerned was pretty clear legally. Two men can not both be charged as armed if there is only one with gun. Since the authorities in the case charged the passenger as possessing an illegal firearm, they would not have charge unarmed driver if he had lived, but he happened to be the one killed. The Post got it right thus invalidating the false accusation by the Wall Street Journal. This only one case of 7940 which only amounts to a 00.01%. However, since the post got it correct IMHO, it is no longer to be considered an outlier. Once again I remind you that the newspaper who made this incorrect accusation was still basing their entire article on the Post's data so they evidently still trusted the data as reliable.
A single mistake in the old CDC report would amount to 1.2 percent. You are the one who doesn't seem to understand the difference in magnitude due to the minuscule population (812 cases) used in the old report versus the newer data (5940 cases all named) You are also incorrectly assuming that that the old report has no mistakes. There is no way to know for sure other than to take into consideration it's many faults as outlined by its own publishers. However, you just continue to ignore all of this.
If that old report is so good then why isn't it being used by anybody today. Hint: It isn't!. And all of your links to try to invalidate the new report tells us that most media outlets are using the Post data or are at least aware of it. I suspect it will gain more traction as time goes
on or at least until the FBI updates their collection process.
Once again, your denial of all of this concerning the old report while still trying to characterize the more current report as invalid would be simply mind boggling if weren't for the fact that this is SOP for you. You always are defending the indefensible through both the misrepresentation and omission of facts plus using some sort of pretzel logic to justify it--and when proved wrong, you just double down.
As my old man used say, you are the type who will climb a tree to tell a lie when you could have stood on the ground and told the truth.

Sigh... So many words to say so little. It's basically one long projection attempt... Just gonna point out a few more points as most of what you say has already been addressed. 8 of the top 20 most populous states are in the study. 5 of the top 10 states with the highest population density are in the study. This has been addressed by me before despite your claim, just not in so many words. Covering a subset of USA does not mean the database is full of errors. It's just extremely stupid to suggest that and it merely show how meritless your aim is. This part alone shows how misguided your position is. I really can't go on with use of such twisted standards.

[tgoodenow]

Just gonna point out a few more points as most of what you say has already been addressed. 5 of the top 10 states with the highest population density are in the study. This has been addressed by me before despite your claim, just not in so many words. Covering a subset of USA does not mean the database is full of errors..

Your last post could have been this, instead you had to call him stupid fourteen different ways as you do on every thread over and over again. Please stop with the dressing, it makes your reading your posts so tedious.

[Forward Observer]

Sigh... So many words to say so little. It's basically one long projection attempt... Just gonna point out a few more points as most of what you say has already been addressed. 8 of the top 20 most populous states are in the study. 5 of the top 10 states with the highest population density are in the study. This has been addressed by me before despite your claim, just not in so many words. Covering a subset of USA does not mean the database is full of errors. It's just extremely stupid to suggest that and it merely show how meritless your aim is. This part alone shows how misguided your position is. I really can't go on with use of such twisted standards.

And once again you try to cherry pick a single statement to try to discount all the points I made. But, I'll address the the claim and single point you are bringing up.

No, there are not 5 of the states used in your report in the top ten, there are only 3 and really only 2 for half of the period counted--if you consider Ohio which was only providing data for two years of the four year report. Your number of 8 in the top 20 is correct however.

At the bottom is a chart of the top 20 states from the 2010 census. We only do a census every 10 years. If you mistakenly used a current population data chart it could be off. However, the there are still only 3 in the top 10 currently. I used a Wiki chart that was right in the middle of the time frame of the CDC report. I couldn't get the chart for the whole 50 states fitted in here but I have it. I had to transfer it from the Wiki to an Excel document and then to Word. I haven't used Excel in ages, so I'm kind of rusty.

As you can plainly see, the populations of the top 6 states are not used in your report. Neither is number 8. Let's go ahead and figure Ohio as though it was in the CDC report all along. The total population for those 3 states in 30.7 million. The total population for the other 7 is 137 million. The top ten represent 20% of our total 50 states.

However the population of those 10 states represents 54.3 of our total population. That was just over half in 2010.

To be representative, any report using less than the total number states will have to choose states that still reflect the breakdown as if all states were used. That's a tall order even if there was some way to pick and choose. However there wasn't any way to do so.

The states from your report in the top 10 represent .09.9 % of the total population of 308.8M back in 2010
This coincidentally represents about 10.5 percent of the total population of your 17 state report at 93.6 mil

The states not in your report in the top 10 represent 44.4 % of the total population
The states not in your report in the top 10 represent 63% of the total population not in your report aka the other 33 states

Thus the high population states are way under represented just as I claimed. These are states with the largest cities with usually a lot of police homicides just due to population size. Now population does not always equal police killings because some states have totally different police homicide rates. Obviously, that sort of info is not included in the CDC report and I couldn't seem to locate such info for 2009 to 2012. It could easily be figured from the Post data since they list both the city and state for each entry, but as I indicated I don't want to have to purchase any software to do so.

It would require some careful data manipulation to really compare all of this but once again I will make the same statement I made before. The authors of the CDC report had no control over the state sampling. They could only use the states that provided the information back 2009 to 2012. To somehow claim, as you are, that by a miraculous accident they ended up getting 17 states that accurately reflects the entire US population breakdown is simply ludicrous. It may be erroneous thinking on your part, but I think it's more likely just willful dishonesty.

It is transparently obvious why you claiming to dismiss anything I've said as meritless based on a single statement about the missing large state populations. However, I think the info I have provided totally validates my statement.

I'm fine with ending this.



P.S. I should add that the way I presented my data is not the most valid way to do it. If I had had more time. I would have prepared a chart for the 17 states lined up in population order and broken it down into
10% segments as I would have done with the entire population just to prove how they would never match up. However, the work involved with that was more than I want to put into it.

[PointOfViewGun]

And once again you try to cherry pick a single statement to try to discount all the points I made. No, there are not 5 of the states used in your report in the top ten, there are only 3 and really only 2 for half of the period counted--if you consider Ohio which was only providing data for two years of the four year report. Your number of 8 in the top 20 is correct however.
At the bottom is a chart of the top 20 states from the 2010 census. We only do a census every 10 years. If you mistakenly used a current population data chart it could be off. However, the there are still only 3 in the top 10 currently. I used a Wiki chart that was right in the middle of the time frame of the CDC report. I couldn't get the chart for the whole 50 states fitted in here but I have it. I had to transfer it from the Wiki to an Excel document and then to Word. I haven't used Excel in ages, so I'm kind of rusty.
As you can plainly see, the populations of the top 6 states are not used in your report. Neither is number 8. Let's go ahead and figure Ohio as though it was in the CDC report all along. The total population for those 3 states in 30.7 million. The total population for the other 7 is 137 million. The top ten represent 20% of our total 50 states.
However the population of those 10 states represents 54.3 of our total population. That was just over half in 2010.
To be representative, any report using less than the total number states will have to choose states that still reflect the breakdown as if all states were used. That's a tall order even if there was some way to pick and choose. However there wasn't any way to do so.
The states from your report in the top 10 represent .09.9 % of the total population of 308.8M back in 2010
This coincidentally represents about 10.5 percent of the total population of your 17 state report at 93.6 mil
The states not in your report in the top 10 represent 44.4 % of the total population
The states not in your report in the top 10 represent 63% of the total population not in your report aka the other 33 states
Thus the high population states are way under represented just as I claimed. These are states with the largest cities with usually a lot of police homicides just due to population size. Now population does not always equal police killings because some states have totally different police homicide rates. Obviously, that sort of info is not included in the CDC report and I couldn't seem to locate such info for 2009 to 2012. It could easily be figured from the Post data since they list both the city and state for each entry, but as I indicated I don't want to have to purchase any software to do so.
It would require some careful data manipulation to really compare all of this but once again I will make the same statement I made before. The authors of the CDC report had no control over the state sampling. They could only use the states that provided the information back 2009 to 2012. To somehow claim, as you are, that by a miraculous accident they ended up getting 17 states that accurately reflects the entire US population breakdown is simply ludicrous. It may be erroneous thinking on your part, but I think it's more likely just willful dishonesty.
It is transparently obvious why you claiming to dismiss anything I've said as meritless based on a single statement about the missing large state populations. However, I think the info I have provided totally validates my statement.
P.S. I should add that the way I presented my data is not the most valid way to do it. If I had had more time. I would have prepared a chart for the 17 states lined up in population order and broken it down into
10% segments as I would have done with the entire population just to prove how they would never match up. However, the work involved with that was more than I want to put into it.

You're not reading carefully again. What I pointed at was 5 of the top 10 states with the highest population density are in the study. Population density, not population in absolute terms. The best you can argue at this point is that black people were more likely to be shot unarmed compared to white people in 17 states of USA. That would be just as petty as what you're trying to do at the moment. The authors of the report indicated that the racial make up of the 17 states was very similar to the racial make up of the entirety of the USA which is a point you completely ignored. You typed all this to undermine the CDC report but the real point that sunk your opinion was your claim that having a subset of states means the data is full of errors. There was no logic in that statement. I'm not surprised you completely ignored that highlight.

[Forward Observer]

You're not reading carefully again. What I pointed at was 5 of the top 10 states with the highest population density are in the study. Population density, not population in absolute terms. The best you can argue at this point is that black people were more likely to be shot unarmed compared to white people in 17 states of USA. That would be just as petty as what you're trying to do at the moment. The authors of the report indicated that the racial make up of the 17 states was very similar to the racial make up of the entirety of the USA which is a point you completely ignored. You typed all this to undermine the CDC report but the real point that sunk your opinion was your claim that having a subset of states means the data is full of errors. There was no logic in that statement. I'm not surprised you completely ignored that highlight.

Below is the statement I made, which you answered by moving the goal post half way through by switching to population density This isn't a virus we are talking about, it is criminality and the police response to it.

Here were the states represented during the time frame of the report:

Data were available for Alaska; Colorado; Georgia; Kentucky; Maryland; Massachusetts; New Jersey; New Mexico; North Carolina; Oklahoma; Oregon; Rhode Island; South Carolina; Utah; Virginia; Wisconsin (2009–2012); and Ohio (2011–2012 only).

Totally missing are many of the states with large population centers.

The 7 most populous states have 44% of the entire population of the country and high population cities such as New York city which has a population density by itself that is greater or equal to any of the indivdual states you could claim.

However, my main claim still remains to be true in that the dated CDC report is missing the states that contain most of the high population centers. Population size and the homicide rates are the most important factors IMHO. Population density is questionable, but trying to prove your point by mixing the two is dodgy at best and dishonest at the worst.

For example New York City by itself had 8.1 million people in 2010 with a population density of 27000. That's equal or greater than any of the individual states that your list would have and greater than Rhode Island and Massachusetts combined. When you start looking at cities like Chicago, L.A, San Francisco, Houston, Philadelphia, Dallas, San Antonio, San Diego which are all in states with higher populations, you'll find that all of those cities have greater population densities than any of those five states. They are almost all above 10k. per square mile.

Here's the main point, I made a simple statement of fact, which I have proved. You responded with an answer that has little to do with what I stated and you had to switch from population to population density to make your claim. You make a statement about 8 states being the most populous and then changed the criteria to population density in mid stream to get 5 states moved to the top 10 . I didn't catch that bit of verbal or procedural gymnastics, but it's irrelevant.

The real measurements have to be police homicide rates by state combined with population IMHO. Whether population density is a factor remains to be seen.

I never claimed that the report was full of errors because of the subset of states. I claimed that like any such report there are probably errors which will never be corrected because it's static report stuck in time. The publishers/editors of the report validate this claim within the report


My claim about the subset of only 17 states further invalidating the report on a national level was just mirroring exactly what the publisher of the report put in a fairly clear written warning. What is quoted below is abbreviated. If you go to the report and read the full paragraph it outlines all of the data collection faults of the report that would further contribute to errors.

You have continued to ignore this and have never addressed it, but I am going to post it one last time. From the report. You must be ignoring it because it flies in the face of all your claims about the report

This study has several limitations. First, NVDRS is not nationally representative;information is only available for the 17 states funded at the time. Second,NVDRS represents only mortality data; information about non-fatal injuries resulting from LE encounters is not included. It is unknown whether included incidents differ from LE encounters involving non-lethal or no force. Third, NVDRS relies solely on investigative information available from medical examiner and LE reports. These cases are unique because officers both inflict the fatal violence and are the key (and sometimes only) witnesses. The potential impact of this on investigative reports is unclear (e.g.,difficulties validating the information, redaction of information because of legal concerns).
Additional research in other jurisdictions is needed to better understand variations in officer response and identify hiring, management, or training policies that might reduce shooting risk. Finally, the current study utilizes data from 2009 to 2012 from 17 states; the findings may not represent the patterns or circumstances of deaths in more-recent years or nationally.

They plainly state that the NVDRS being only 17 states is not representative of the nation. It goes on to describe other shortcomings due to the data gathering methods and then finally concludes by saying the findings may not represent patterns of death in more recent years or nationally.

How much plainer could it get. Yet, you steadfastly claim otherwise with equally flawed evidence. That is why I made the statement that you should be arguing with the CDC and not me.

You somehow continue to imply that without the ability to choose which states would participate--the team that prepared the report somehow ended up with 17 states that miraculously represented the whole. That's shows a lack of critical thinking and simple common sense. The publishers of the report don't agree with you either.

At least one site dedicated to police homicides has stated police homicides have shifted greatly over the last 10 years mostly by moving from the population centers to the suburbs further dating the CDC report.

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

It's stated in the 4th chart down. I don't know how they get their data, but I'll bet it's mostly from the Post. According to their footnotes that's what Wikipedia now uses for most of their related data.

I still can't understand why you chose this flawed and dated report as the hill to die on. Maybe you should print it out and frame it on the wall. Then there'll be at least one person viewing it. However, I'll wager you will be the only one.

I'm not going to waste anymore time on this subject matter. Your blatant bias and dishonesty are just to much to deal with. I've got too many other real life things that need to get done like go get a haircut and then rearrange my sock drawer.

Good day

[B. W.]

BLM supporters shoot and kill white mother for saying all lives matter:

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020...-lives-matter/

It's just more proof that BLM is a racist organization.

[PointOfViewGun]

BLM supporters shoot and kill white mother for saying all lives matter:

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020...-lives-matter/

It's just more proof that BLM is a racist organization.

I love how this comes from the one cop killing of unarmed black man doesn't make all cops racist mentality...

[priam11]

Nor does the article even clarify how this proof that one side is racist. Or in the case for the poster, BLM.
Another article from New York Daily News mentions that someone from Whittaker's group used a racial slur, argument follows, both sides pull out guns (as this is America) and then someone dies. Seems odd that Breitbart alleges that a racial slur was used but leaves the source of that as open...weird....

[Knight of Heaven]

Well lets see, one person was killed by saying all lives matter. BLM movement consider that slogan a racist, white supremacist slogan. So the racial motivations seems pretty obvious on this one.
But if nothing else, is just proves the lack of tolerance people have within this movement. Also interesting to see BLM went from killing black male teenagers, to a white woman for saying something they didn't like.

George Floyd was killed because? we are not even sure why at this point. Police Negligence of protocol? or by following the protocol, Derek Chauvin knew the victim, and had worked with him before.... context is everything in this.
It proves at most there is problems with police brutality, whenever this is a generalized practice, it is quite a stretch to make.

There might be racial motivation for the murder, but its not obviously apparent, as BLM movement, and general media would like to be so. IMO. And the proof is this kind of situations with neck immobilization on the ground are part of police protocol, and not exclusive towards black suspects.


EDIT:

BLM supporters shoot and kill white mother for saying all lives matter:

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020...-lives-matter/

It's just more proof that BLM is a racist organization.

A follow up,
"Black Lives Matter sociopaths are currently raiding the Facebook page of Jessica Doty Whitaker, the young mother who was murdered after saying “All Lives Matter,” celebrating her death and mocking her grieving relatives."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...orment-family/


https://twitter.com/de_dust2Blepe/st...ment-family%2F

[Sir Adrian]

Even black people are turning on BLM

[TheLeft]

Bad news for conservatives, in Bristol the statue of racist, mass-murdering Tory MP Edward Colston has been replaced by a statue of a BLM protester, Jen Reid. Personally, I think this is a fantastic idea and I look forward to more statues glorifying racist s coming down and being replaced by people that aren't mass-murdering sociopaths.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-53414463

Please all add your far-right tears below... I'll be busy drinking them up like a fine wine