Race:
The Numbers Game,
or Are You Calling Me Liberal? Them's Fighting Words
Sherm re
JoT re Sherm re "Cops"

Jonathan,

First, let me say that I agree with your assessment of the Seattle situation:

"1. Police shoot and kill people that run afoul of them proportionately, regardless of "race."
2. Blacks run afoul of the police in disproportionate numbers.
3. Therefore, blacks get shot and killed in disproportionate numbers.

This scenario still supports my central point:

The fact that Seattle cops are disproportionately killing blacks doesn't indicate that Seattle cops are more trigger-happy toward blacks (because we already know that blacks disproportionately run afoul of the police)." (Jonathan's Quote)

But:

"If I wanted to keep making liberals angry, I'd continue by pointing out that one reason that blacks disproportionately run afoul of the police is that they disproportionately commit crimes. But why even go there?" (Jonathan's Quote)

First, this statement actually goes to the intent of my comments. Jonathan, how do you know that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes? The numbers that would support your statement cannot be proven because of bias, intentional or not. The truth is blacks are more likely to be arrested/harassed for the crimes-actually committed or not-than other racial groups. (And I'm not arguing that they don't commit crimes.)

Second, I hope you're not calling me a liberal? There's no need for name-calling. J

Finally, You are correct. I misunderstood your statement:

"BTW: The 40% figure I quoted is from the Seattle Times, which cited the Justice Department as its source. The figure is that black men commit 40% of the crimes in the US, not that 40% of black men are criminals." (Jonathan's Quote)

But, as I've tried to point out the figures are absolutely worthless.

—Sherm
February 2002

JoT

colorDraft1