nancy pelosi inside closed hair salon without a mask

[spence]

For someone who claims to be an actuarial you have a terrible grasp of statistics.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

For someone who claims to be an actuarial you have a terrible grasp of statistics.

I notice you didn't point out any errors I made.

If you look at the number of unarmed people killed by cops by race, and compare that to each race's makeup of the general population, unarmed blacks are a disproportionate share (but the number is so small, it has no meaning). But if you compare the numbers shot by race to each race's share of population in urban areas (which is where these things happen), unarmed blacks are not a disproportionate share.

You have nothing to bolster your argument, except the Sharpton-like rantings of shameless race baiters.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

For someone who claims to be an actuarial you have a terrible grasp of statistics.

Article from the National Academy of the Sciences.

"We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings"

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Article from the National Academy of the Sciences.

"We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings"

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

I think you forgot to read this part.

What These Findings Do Not Show.
Our analyses test for racial disparities in FOIS, which should not be conflated with racial bias (21). Racial disparities are a necessary but not sufficient, requirement for the existence of racial biases, as there are many reasons why fatal shootings might vary across racial groups that are unrelated to bias on the behalf of police officers.

Besides, all that study looked at was fatal officer involved shootings and not potential police bias in general.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you forgot to read this part.



Besides, all that study looked at was fatal officer involved shootings and not potential police bias in general.

what you say I forgot to post, has no real meaning.

"all that study looked at was fatal officer involved shootings and not potential police bias in general"

Does this mean you'll concede that there's no epidemic of cops waking up, and deciding to shoot a black person?

I freely concede there's bias in things like traffic stops (the data is crystal clear). Not in the use of deadly force (the data is crystal clear).

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

what you say I forgot to post, has no real meaning.

Actually it invalidates your argument

Does this mean you'll concede that there's no epidemic of cops waking up, and deciding to shoot a black person?

I freely concede there's bias in things like traffic stops (the data is crystal clear). Not in the use of deadly force (the data is crystal clear).

The data isn't crystal clear. First off your report only looks at events where there's a fatality, the Jacob Blake event wouldn't even count as a statistic. Second, your own report states "The uncertainty around these estimates highlights the need for more data before drawing conclusions about disparities in specific types of shootings."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually it invalidates your argument


The data isn't crystal clear. First off your report only looks at events where there's a fatality, the Jacob Blake event wouldn't even count as a statistic. Second, your own report states "The uncertainty around these estimates highlights the need for more data before drawing conclusions about disparities in specific types of shootings."

"Actually it invalidates your argument"

Not even close. It said while there were no racial disparities, they couldn't disprove racial biases. Nor could they prove racial biases. But if a million cops were engaged in a race war, wouldn't there be SOME evidence of racial disparities in the data? There's nothing. Zip.

If the best you can say is "well the data shows no disparities, but that doesn't mean cops don't distrust blacks", fine, go ahead and cling to some nebulous, unprovable nonsense.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually it invalidates your argument


The data isn't crystal clear. First off your report only looks at events where there's a fatality, the Jacob Blake event wouldn't even count as a statistic. Second, your own report states "The uncertainty around these estimates highlights the need for more data before drawing conclusions about disparities in specific types of shootings."

The data is crystal clear that cops are not engaged in an epidemic of racial assassinations of blacks. The data could not be more clear on that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The data is crystal clear that cops are not engaged in an epidemic of racial assassinations of blacks. The data could not be more clear on that.

Your "data" only involves shootings, is from one year, only factors in fatalities and repeatedly states that more data and analysis is required.

That's not very crystal clear.