Data on Police Shootings this year so far

[cclaxton]

For the Forum's consideration, some interesting data on police-related shootings in 2015 so far. What I found interesting is the number of whites is almost twice the number of blacks.:

GENDER
Male

438

Female

23

Unknown

0

WEAPON
Deadly weapon

387

Toy weapon

16

Unarmed

51

Unknown

7

RACE
White

226

Black

121

Hispanic

78

Asian

7

Unknown

29

SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS
Yes

123

No or unknown

338

AGE
Under 18

11

18 to 24

69

25 to 34

137

35 to 44

111

45 to 54

79

55 and up

47

Unknown

7

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...tings/?hpid=z1
Cody

[KeeFus]

For the Forum's consideration, some interesting data on police-related shootings in 2015 so far. What I found interesting is the number of whites is almost twice the number of blacks.:

GENDER
Male

438

Female

23

Unknown

0

WEAPON
Deadly weapon

387

Toy weapon

16

Unarmed

51

Unknown

7

RACE
White

226

Black

121

Hispanic

78

Asian

7

Unknown

29

SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS
Yes

123

No or unknown

338

AGE
Under 18

11

18 to 24

69

25 to 34

137

35 to 44

111

45 to 54

79

55 and up

47

Unknown

7

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...tings/?hpid=z1
Cody

Why are you surprised? There has been data available for quite awhile suggesting that this has been the case...but the race-baiting mouth pieces and media want everyone to think differently.

[cclaxton]

Why are you surprised? There has been data available for quite awhile suggesting that this has been the case...but the race-baiting mouth pieces and media want everyone to think differently.

I didn't say I was surprised...I said it was "interesting...." kinda like saying "notable."
Cody

[Peally]

They're just racist against middle aged white men.

[voodoo_man]

Ummm, yeah, thats like, standard for the last 20 or so years, statistically.

Whites are killed by police at almost 2x the rate.

Dont drink the media koolaid.

[Hambo]

Wow, imagine that, armed suspects shot outnumber unarmed suspects shot nearly 8:1.

[Tiffany Johnson]

Wow, imagine that, armed suspects shot outnumber unarmed suspects shot nearly 8:1.

Hambo, I think numbers like these are far more effective at dispelling myths about law enforcement. The race numbers are trickier (potentially)...

First, most of the serious people on the other side (exclude the racial rabble-rousers) have never claimed that cops kill more blacks than whites. Instead they're arguing that blacks are killed disproportionately. And if blacks are 13% of the population and 50% of the deaths by police, then yes, technically that is disproportionate. However, I hate the "proportionality argument," because it's a huge straw man. Freakish anomalies aside, there's no direct correlation between racial proportions in general and the case-by-case legality of force. When I find myself in debates with well-meaning, rational folks (the rest I just ignore), I try to focus on the bounds of justifiable force instead of race. That's not to say that race is irrelevant, but as a strategy matter it's not the easiest way to bridge the divide. On the other hand, when I explain the Tueller study, for example, often times folks who were screaming "but all he had was a knife" tend to simmer down.

Second, it's not a contest to see which race gets killed the least. If ten thousand people die justifiably, then we have no problem (regardless of race). If one person dies without justification, then we do have a problem (regardless of race). Focusing too much on tick marks in the dead column I think gives the other side room to argue that police are willing to accept a certain number of deaths without question, just by virtue of some kind of quota system. So I'd caution everybody about presuming the debate is won just because more whites are killed than blacks. It could be perceived as a red herring, IMHO.

This is not to take away from Cody's post at all. Those numbers are crucial, and we should all understand them and be ready to educate people if it comes up. Just playing devil's advocate and throwing out a few more things to consider. Thanks, Cody, for the link. Great stuff.

[GJM]

Tiffany, good post.

Shifting gears, speaking of shot people, we have an autopsy showing the NY prison escapee one was shot three times in the head, because he didn't comply quickly enough, and escapee two got shot twice in the back. I got no problem with the outcome, but just sayin', if there was body cam video, I bet it would be interesting to watch.

[runcible]

Tiffany, good post.

Shifting gears, speaking of shot people, we have an autopsy showing the NY prison escapee one was shot three times in the head, because he didn't comply quickly enough, and escapee two got shot twice in the back. I got no problem with the outcome, but just sayin', if there was body cam video, I bet it would be interesting to watch.

I don't quite follow - could you elaborate on what you're implying might be shown with such?

[Hambo]

Hambo, I think numbers like these are far more effective at dispelling myths about law enforcement. The race numbers are trickier (potentially)...

First, most of the serious people on the other side (exclude the racial rabble-rousers) have never claimed that cops kill more blacks than whites. Instead they're arguing that blacks are killed disproportionately. And if blacks are 13% of the population and 50% of the deaths by police, then yes, technically that is disproportionate. However, I hate the "proportionality argument," because it's a huge straw man. Freakish anomalies aside, there's no direct correlation between racial proportions in general and the case-by-case legality of force. When I find myself in debates with well-meaning, rational folks (the rest I just ignore), I try to focus on the bounds of justifiable force instead of race. That's not to say that race is irrelevant, but as a strategy matter it's not the easiest way to bridge the divide. On the other hand, when I explain the Tueller study, for example, often times folks who were screaming "but all he had was a knife" tend to simmer down.

Second, it's not a contest to see which race gets killed the least. If ten thousand people die justifiably, then we have no problem (regardless of race). If one person dies without justification, then we do have a problem (regardless of race). Focusing too much on tick marks in the dead column I think gives the other side room to argue that police are willing to accept a certain number of deaths without question, just by virtue of some kind of quota system. So I'd caution everybody about presuming the debate is won just because more whites are killed than blacks. It could be perceived as a red herring, IMHO.

This is not to take away from Cody's post at all. Those numbers are crucial, and we should all understand them and be ready to educate people if it comes up. Just playing devil's advocate and throwing out a few more things to consider. Thanks, Cody, for the link. Great stuff.

Great post, Tiffany. Raw numbers are...raw numbers. My post was sarcastic in that the media portrays cops as shooting lots of unarmed suspects when they really don't.

As you say, proportionality is a bad way of measuring anything, especially at the national level. It might have some meaning in cities or counties, but even then you would have to dig deeper than the numbers to really understand what's going on.