Does Holla Forums have a response to this graph? It's been presented to me in a debate I'm having on another website.
The graph shows crime rate vs. number of police shootings. It appears to show no relationship between the two.
My first thought is that there are so few police killings that the margin of error on those numbers would be too wide to draw the conclusion that is being drawn based on a single year's data.
Other urls found in this thread:
mappingpoliceviolence.org
census.gov
ucr.fbi.gov
static1.squarespace.com
twitter.com
Use it to debunk blm. Black cities have the most violent crime. If there is no correlation between violent crime and police killings then there is no correlation between police killings and black communities. Meaning cops do not target blacks.
What's the point they're trying to prove using this graph
Point out to them that one year is a weak-ass sample size.
Also, this.
Tell you what OP: Why not check the numbers?
I don't really want to spend my time verifying this data, but if its part of an argument you're in, YOU SHOULD, and you should make a graphic out of it.
There isn't a relationship. Just because a person committed a violent crime doesn't mean that person will threaten the lives of police. Police killings are caused by random acts of retardation.
Maybe police violence is more connected with the severity of the crimes, rather by their sheer number? I mean, violent crime is a wide category.
What is the context. We need to know what you are arguing and what argument the graphic is used to support.
Yeah, didn't see that. This graphic is completely useless for anything.
Look at the axis on that graph.
The graph is deliberately made as to make the police look violent.
To add:
I would start with examination of where the data came from.
That graph seems… Strange, as well.
One scale is at per 1,000, the other is at per 1,000,000.
Seems there could be some manipulation of data in play here.
Given one of the cited sources is this:
> mappingpoliceviolence.org
It wouldn't surprise me.
Definitions
Police Killing: A case where a person dies as a result of being chased, beaten, arrested, restrained, shot, pepper sprayed, tasered, or otherwise harmed by police officers, whether on-duty or off-duty, intentional or accidental.
A victim was coded as Unarmed in the database if they were one or more of the following:
•not holding any objects or weapons when killed
•holding household/personal items that were not used to attack others (cellphone, video game controller, cane, etc.)
•holding a toy weapon (BB gun, pellet gun, air rifle, toy sword)
•an innocent bystander or hostage killed
•a pedestrian or motorist accidentally hit by a police car or passengers in a vehicle chased by police with no weapon on them
•drivers or passengers accidentally hit by a police car
•drivers killed while fleeing who do not hit, drag or drive towards officers or civilians
•a person who dies in police custody after a police use of force or police neglect of their medical needs
•alleged to be armed by the police, but multiple independent witnesses maintain the person was unarmed, video evidence shows that the person was unarmed, and/or circumstances indicate it was physically impossible for that person to be armed (i.e. claiming a person shot themselves with their own gun while handcuffed and under surveillance in police custody after being searched for weapons)
A victim was coded as Vehicle in the database if they were one or more of the following:
•a driver who was killed while hitting, dragging or driving towards officers or civilians
•a driver being chased at high speed by police (they could be considered a threat to others by driving at such reckless speeds)
•a person was killed by a civilian driver fleeing from a police pursuit, then they are not included in the database
A person was coded as Allegedly Armed in the database if they were one or more of the following:
•possessing objects or weapons in circumstances other than those stated above
•a driver being chased at high speed by police (they could be considered a threat to others by driving at such reckless speeds)
Yeah, that site is definitely not an unbiased source.
They've got fucking deray on their media response team for fucks sake.
I think it's neat what you get when you connect the blue dots.
niggers 1000X more likely to kill you than police, the graph.
Need longer term data, and regression co-coefficients R^2
Here's the other three.
But violent crime, gang on gang, doesn't matter; violence against police and attitudes toward police matter. What's more there are differences between violent crime in Chicago or Detroit and violent crime in some place like Vegas or Daytona Beach. Drive bys and homicides are not the equivalent to drunken fist fights and Domestic violence.
gtfo
I take they're claiming this is proof niggers are unfairly targeted? The stats aren't wrong, police are thugs, where the niggers get wrong is thinking they're special snowflakes, cops are attacking everyone. I would love to rid the police of jew/IDF mental conditioning, change screening to bar bullies, thugs, and other deficients from being police instead of actively recruiting them.
give me a link to the raw data set.
and show them this chart while you are waiting
Okay, now, let me see if I can devise where and how they got and used this data.
Probably used for the number of police killings.
Probably used for the number of violent crimes
Probably used for population as to determine rates
Already we can see a blatant source of potential data fudging - Mapping Police Violence is a biased data outlet, and their numbers are likely the backbone of the proposed police killing rate.
Also, I just realized they're using the city information in a very deceptive way - by their reasoning, Memphis has a higher violent crime rate than than New York or Chicago.
How can this be?
Because of the manner of measurement - very deceptive.
A site like that will never provide the raw data set.
They'll just put the info out there, tell you the sources they claim to have used, and leave you to prove them wrong.
Which will, sadly, take quite a lot of math and probably a few hours of time.
i just need the data son, find that give me the link an its all done in 30 mins.
Again, you won't get the link, because there is no 'link' to the full data set.
You'd have to go to the Census to get their population figures.
Then go to the FBI to get the violent crime figures.
Then go to this shitty BLM site to get their claimed police-killing figures.
From those, you can devise the rate, and plot the data.
You think they're just going to casually hand you the means to easily and quickly debunk their shit?
Nah man.
They'll just throw their sources out there, and leave you to take the time to debunk their claims - which most people simply will not spend the time to do.
wtf i hate cops now
WE WUZ
thier first deception is the double Y axis, compareing 1000's with millions. the red dots should be on the x axis by rights and proves no real relationship.
then with blue dots sort by largest to smallest then compare to cites by non white population percentage. The new line would be percentage non white X10 (which would be per mille) to match up with their per thousand violent crimes.
do another line of just black population per mille to shot blacks are the primary contributors of this non white violence.
but to some extent stats don't matter, you are dealing with brainwashed virtue signalling cucks, niggers and cunts.
Census: > census.gov
BLM:
> mappingpoliceviolence.org
… So, last year, police were responsible for killing .0001% of the US population.
What an epidemic.
Really deserves all this concern, doesn't it?
End of the day, this is the core of the matter.
I've dealt with these morons so many times before… You explain to them that something like 1/10th of 1/10th of 1% of US gun owners kill anyone with their firearm in any given year, and that THATS AN OVER-ESTIMATION (potentially by quite a bit no less), and they just can't wrap their minds around it, because the media is screeching in their ear everyday that there's a gun violence epidemic.
if the police violence data has no external link then the data has no validity. challenge them for their data source and methodology to their data science cuck.
That graphic has a lie in it, the White on White includes in large measure shitskins labeled as White.
Ask them if they know personally any black who has been killed.
ask the race of the killer
Oh shit I was wrong!
Link to the data, or so they claim.
for sure but even with that bias against whites, the point is still clear, blacks are far more responsible for killing black than any other race.
I don't think the federal government uses square space.
Violent crime, in my eyes, doesn't have anything to do with police violence. Police are a reactionary force for the most part, thus most of their killings are in reaction to something that is or has already happened. Violent crime should be more tied to the state of the populace–whether the populace is actively defending itself or not.
This is definitely a major factor.
Example: First on their list, Bakersfield.
Demographics:
56.8% "White"
→ 37.8% NH White
45.5% Hispanic
8% Black
Right there - 20% of the "White" demographic is spics.
Wonder how much that boosts the relative figures…
What kind of retard do they think they're fooling with this graph? Instead of showing nationwide averages, they cherrypicked a couple cities and outliers out of a nation of 310 million people.
Hell, I could even make it look like low violent crime rates correlate with high police killing rates if I just pick the right cities.
Nope, that's their excel data for the people killed.
Again, you have to go back and reference the Census and FBI data to make a full comparison - which is intentional.
Nobody whose making dishonest propaganda wants it to be easy or quick to debunk.
not a lot police can do in places like detroit tbh
criminals outnumber them 12:1
what are you trying to prove exactly? the response is you're a faggot
how about that
I don't really understand what's the problem with that. Maybe I'm missing some implication but I don't think that vengeful cops would be preferable. I can concede the point for the sake of argument but I don't get what it brings.
Also the scaling is pretty arbitrary. Per a 1000 vs per 1000000. So civilians seem to still be way shittier than cops.
I don't even know what's even trying to prove. All I'm getting is that cops seem to harm less But the scaling looks weird. Besides 1000 to 1000000
once whites become a minority in a community a tipping point has truly been reached, a point of no return an event horizon, the crime increases dramatically.
Expecting a correlation is the problem with this data. These shootings happen so rarely compared to other forms of crime that they don't have enough data to be relevant to the sample.
It's more or less picking an extremely rare crime and trying to correlate it to something much less rare. If it were something more popular like homicide (>>7634367), there'd be a clear correlation (or you could expect one). But there won't be, because there's far more homicides than police shootings of black people. A large part of statistics is having good data and having a lot of it. With these shootings happening so infrequently compared to other crimes, it's not good data. The worst part of this graph is that they are comparing entire cities. All it takes is one pocket of violent niggers in a nice city to register as a major police shooting event. The samples are all fucked up, they're taking legitimate statistical analysis and using it on shitty data.
underrated post
Killing a criminals is not done to prevent crime.
It is done to stop the suspect from hurting others or killing police.
Killing criminals has nothing to do with the amount of crime that is present.
The number of police killings only jumps with the number of black people in the city.
B/c blacks are notorious for attempting to escape prison / trying to kill police
/thread