Racial discrepancies in police shootings

obsessionwithregression.blogspot.com

> To be clear: most people shot by police are armed and are attacking.

Most police reports say the victim is attacking, but they've been caught lying time after time (usually with no repercussions). Talking about all these statistics to even one significant digit seems suspect.

These don't seem to be controlling their numbers for actual proportion. They're comparing direct %s without considering the higher proportion of white Americans. If there were no bias then the %s shown should match the relative population sizes.

The point is that black + Hispanic Americans are more likely to be unarmed when shot. That has nothing to do with the proportion of Americans who are white.

More than that, they don't relate percentages that need to be related.

For the black case, 29% weren't attacking, 15% were unarmed. What's to say the 15% that were unarmed weren't attacking?

There's no way to draw any meaningful conclusion from this data, because it's crap data.

What would be useful? Relating scenarios where someone shouldn't have been shot, like the percentage of unarmed people that were shot and not attacking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com