This one's fun†, too:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/08/police-sh...

"Among men of all races, ages 25 to 29, police killings are the sixth-leading cause of death, according to a study led by Frank Edwards of Rutgers University, with a total annual mortality risk of 1.8 deaths per 100,000 people. Accidental death, a category that includes automotive accidents and drug overdoses, was the biggest cause at 76.6 deaths per 100,000, and followed by suicide (26.7), other homicides (22.0), heart disease (7.0), and cancer (6.3)."

† fun == sickening

So for every man killed by police (note that this is all police killings including those of armed suspects fighting the police) there's 42 people killed in accidents, 13 people commit suicide, 11 murdered by normal people's, 3.5 that die of heart disease, and 2 that die of cancer. And this is specifically for the demographic most likely to commit violent crime: young men.

Another way of phrasing this is, "even among the gender and age group most likely to be killed by police, people are an order of magnitude more likely to die of accidents, at the hands of non-police, or by their own hand than at the hands of a police officer."

Yes? Just because other things happen more often doesn't mean something isn't an issue.

That includes violent criminals being shot out of self defense. I wonder what the stat is for murder by cops when the victim didn’t have a deadly weapon.

It says "police killings are the sixth-leading cause of death".

"Police killings" by definition includes shootouts, when they were fired at fist, seriously threatened with firearms etc.

Sure, police interaction can and should be strongly looked-at and there have been much too much unwarranted deaths by police but just attributing some cause-of-death ranking to police killings without justified/unjustified contextualization is downright misleading.

If you're aged 25-29 though, what else are you going to die of? Those 6 categories cover pretty much any way you can die except diseases.

I mean, they could just not be killed.

Those cases aren't represented in the list of top causes of death.

From your link:

> Our results show that people of color face a higher likelihood of being killed by police than do white men and women, that risk peaks in young adulthood, and that men of color face a nontrivial lifetime risk of being killed by police.

This is a problem. Whether you believe it is due to racial discrimination, societal pressures, or something else, the fact that BIPOC are being killed by police at a higher rate is a problem worth solving.

jesus fuck this place is basically becoming a white supremacist message board

Sorry you have an issue with statistical facts and that equates to "white supremacy" to you. The rest of us are not going to dodge reality because its uncomfortable to discuss.

>Dont commit over 50% of the homicides in the country despite being 13% of the population and the stats will go down.

Why do you think the statistics look like this? You must have some reason for bringing it up.

I'm confused why you are comparing risk of death to police action versus other causes. The linked research shows that of all deaths attributed to police action, people of color are extremely over-represented for their proportion of the population subject to police action. What does risk of death from other causes have to do with this conversation, and why do you think the research contradicts the results presented in the article?

I'm working off this:

>it's really not actually that big a problem, compared to say... Murders or violent crime.

It seems big enough to be "a big problem".

Taking your numbers at face value, it seems we have an inequity problem regardless of police involvement. The question becomes, why are Black people committing over 50% of homicides, and what impact does our current policing strategy have on that number?

Sure, but thats not at all the point I'm addressing and is outside the scope of this conversation.

Im not here to go deep down the rabbit hole with you on philosophy. Im just giving you the context on the numbers.

I'm not sure what the scope of the conversation is, then. The article is a report on a novel mechanism to reduce crime (novel in the US, that is). Your claim, as I understand it, is that the absolute number of excess deaths from police action in the Black population correlates with the outsized representation of the Black population in homicides, and you don't see a problem with this (please correct me if I misunderstand). I hypothesize, admittedly through leading questions, that addressing said outsized representation through means other than policing may have a beneficial effect on the overall crime rate, which seems to align with the reporting in the article. Is there something I'm missing?

> African Americans are 13% of the US population but commit over 50% of the homicides in the country

Given the source of that data (which is law enforcement agency reports), “are blamed by law enforcement for committing” would be more accurate.

So you believe that there are a significant amount of non-African-American murderers who managed to escape prosecution, and that these law enforcement agencies framed random African-Americans for murders they didn't commit? And you believe this happens across the country at rates high enough to change these numbers?

The FBI website statistics or statista as a shortcut to them.

This article has goods stats. https://quillette.com/2020/06/11/racist-police-violence-reco...

TL;DR: looking at numbers killed by police in absolute is meaningless. You also need to consider how many of these deaths occurred while the person who was killed by cops was also armed with a gun or deadly weapon. Hint: most of the people who get shot and killed by cops were trying to harm those same cops.