Or maybe you meant to argue that crime rate is an indicator for general lawlessness of the population, in which case crime rate and police violence are two sides of the same coin?
How is it not obvious?
See the graphic at the bottom of this page and feel free to peruse the linked dataset as well.
But then again, you get stuff like this https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/12/los-angeles-deput...
Crime is correlated to localized socioeconomic situations. FTFY.
Single occurences are irrelevant if we're talking about trends. I can conjure an emotional story to prove any possible outlook on this problem.
Yes, crime is correlated to socioeconomic situations, that doesn't contradict anything in my comment.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/06/29/many-countries-po...
ryana posted a link re crime rates not really making a difference.
"While some have blamed violent crime for being responsible for police violence in some communities, data shows that high levels of violent crime in cities did not appear to make it any more or less likely for police departments to kill people."
Your turn to back up your claim that "Crime rate is correlated with amount of situations where use of lethal force is necessary."
My initial assumption was based on the soviet research from the late 80s on this subject, but I couldn't easily find a link right now. (Yes, I know what you think of soviet police system, and you're right in general, but I know the people who did this research and the political climate itself was pretty vegetarian too at the time).
It's a bit curious that you haven't answered my original question, or come back with anything substantive apart from expressing surprise at someone not understanding what you meant by "Aren't?"
And split it by areas. I don't think anyone would find if suspicious that cops kill more people in crime-infested poor neighborhood with constant gang violence than in a high-middle class London suburb.