Wrong way to make the argument.
What is the most factual way to present the case that cops shootings of black civilians is not “disproportionate”.
If you were looking for what portion of women attending church had brown hair instead of black hair, and then compare that to men attending church what numbers would you use? Would you use the total numbers of the male and female members of the church? No. You would only use the numbers for church attendance, because not all members actually attend the church at any one time, or generally.
But making that kind of mistake, or intentional error, is what people do when they suggest blacks getting shot disproportionately by police, and the base figure they use, in error, is the portion of the total population that is “black”. So if blacks are only X % of the total population but the % of all fatal encounters between police that involve black civilians is greater than X, the suggestion, and false image. is there is a “disproportionate” number of such incidents with blacks.
But not all black people have an encounter with the police, so comparing the fatal encounters against the total population is an error.
The correct measure is not the % of the whole population that is black. It is only the police encounters with a black civilian and what portion of those encounters turn bad that are used to determine the % of THOSE ENCOUNTERS that turned fatal, and compared to such encounters with other civilians.
The problem that the deceivers have starts with the disproportionately higher rates of blacks for major crimes like murder, rape, robbery & assault. Those higher crime rates are what is disproportionate to the black population, with each of them - murder, rape, robbery and assault, representing a bigger proportion of blacks for those crimes in total - for all “races”, than the proportion of blacks in the total population.
Blacks represent about only 13% of the population. But in arrests for murder &/or manslaughter, blacks represent about 53%, and for rape 28%, for robbery 54%, for aggravated assault 33.5%, for robbery 30%, for larceny theft 30%, for motor vehicle theft 30%, for arson 25%, for violent crime altogether 37%, property crimes altogether 30%, other assaults 31%, forgery and counterfeiting 32%, fraud 30%, embezzlement 37.6%, dealing in stolen property 33%, vandalism 30%, weapons charges 43,6%, prostitution & commercialized vice 37.5%, sex offices 25%, drug offenses 27%, illegal gambling 52%, offenses against family/children 28%, DUI 14%, liquor law violations 14%, public drunkenness 14%, vagrancy 27.8%, all other offenses 27.5%. And in sum, all listed offenses together - 27%.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43
In all but DUI, liquor law violations and public drunkenness the rate of arrests of black civilians is twice or more the proportion of blacks to the total population. In murder and robbery the rate is more than three times the % of blacks in the total population.
What all that means is (1) blacks have a rate of having encounters with the police that is disproportionately higher than the black % of the total population, (2) because blacks have a disproportionately higher rate of arrests for many major crimes.
The number of times those encounters include a cop (of any race) shooting or causing the death of the black civilian is NOT racially disproportionate compared to such police encounters with civilians of other “races”. It only appears so when the media and everyone else uses the % of the total population of blacks or whites verses just the totals of police encounters with blacks or whites.
Roland G. Fryer (”black”), a Harvard economics professor wrote about this subject in a WSJ editorial, and came to the conclusions I demonstrated above.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-data-say-about-police-11592845959
Thank you.