• ssu
    A dip for the wealthy hits a lot harder than a dip for the poor. That's what your statistics don't show you.Wheatley
    Which is shown with the gini coefficient or the gini index, as I stated.

    And the real question is, when has this income inequality gone down? It has you know, in the US from at least 1850 to 1960.


    And to understand what that gini coefficient means (if you didn't read the link I gave) it is that if everybody has the same amount of wealth (true communism), it's 0 and if Bill Gates has everything and everybody else nothing, it's 1 (or 100, if we use percentages). And of course the history is that dirt poor farmers and urban dwellers have gotten more prosperous since 1850 in the US, but then after 1960 or so wealth hasn't been distributed is similar fashion as before. Yet with income inequality you have to take into account actual absolute povetry. You see, if Bill Gates moved to Finland the gini coefficient/index would spike up, but we wouldn't be worse off from that.

  • Hallucinogen
    They’re saying that the numbers being similar DESPITE the black populations being smaller SHOWS that they are target more; the numbers targeted COMPARED TO the population number is where the “more targeted” claim comes from, and that’s why people are mentioning populations.Pfhorrest

    And the reason for that, as I was trying to say, is for the same reason that men are killed 7 times more than women DESPITE populations of men and women being the same.

    The group with the higher violent crime rate ends up having a higher death by cop rate per capita, because they encounter police more often in a violent context.
  • Hallucinogen
    Some cities with high rates of violent crime have fewer police killings than those with higher violent crime rates, a situation that can make police killings feel wanton and baseless.StreetlightX

    This is data on cities and states - that's not the same as the relationship between the violence of a group of people and their rate of getting killed by cops.

    Cities and states have laws and procedures which affect the way police behave. A reason why a city with a high violent crime rate but a low police kill rate may be that the high level of violence in that city has caused people to adapt, for example by adopting regulations like banning certain chokeholds, or simply just police becoming more experienced with subduing violent people. The same reasoning applies on a state level. Likewise, a city or state with a low violent crime rate can have a high police kill rate, if those police aren't inducted on how to handle bad situations and they're allowed to do whatever they like to bring people under control. Then, when an uncooperative (or even cooperative one like Floyd or Tony Timpa) suspect comes along, the situation can result in a death. In either of those two scenarios, higher rates of violent behavior from an ethnic group or sex resulting in a higher rate of being killed by police is still perfectly consistent with the trend you are pointing out with cities bucking that same trend.
  • ssu
    Just to recap, here's in a nutshell a good clip on just what is the problem with policing in the US compared to other countries from CBS news. Many of the issues that have already come up in the discussion a) amount of firearms in the us b) police being heavily armed and ready to use weapons c) lack de-escalation tactics in training d) lack of other services than police e) politicized police unions.

Add a Comment