This is a time for discussion about violence, prejudice and fear. Writers want to join this conversation, great…but…
Recently, a friend of a friend posted a link to this article of an article.
The article didn’t say anything particularly new. But I’ve heard of Heather MacDonald, the person it was summarizing. And this topic of police and Black citizens and death is on my (everyone’s) mind for obvious reasons. So…
There are people who bring up statistics, even unpopular statistics, about crime because they believe a rational, honest discussion and not a media barrage of click-bait infotainment will help more people not be murdered. One recent admirable example of this is Mark Follan.
On the other hand, some people bring out stats not because they are looking for a solution, and not only because they believe they are entirely right. They trot out the numbers because they resent their ideological opponents and want to make them look bad.
As for the websites where Mac Donald article came from, where do they stand? Well, Monday they posted about a new report on police shootings not being racially biased with this headline – capitals theirs:
“New Study find NO RACIAL BIAS Against Blacks in Police Shootings”
Again, capitals theirs.
Now, they could have just been trying to emphasis the main point of the study as a kind of headline-sized abstract for our convenience.
Or they could have been trying to say “See, all you whiney Black (beeps) ! You’re wrong! Stop complaining about racism!”
You be the judge.
Anyhow, getting back to the previous Mac Donald article about which I am writing: I don’t know much about MacDonald (I mainly recalled the name from this piece). I’m sure she has world-bettering motives in mind.
Which is great.
But this particular article/summary citing her work doesn’t seem like bettering is on the agenda. It more reads like one long, capitalized headline aimed at proving “certain people” are wrong.
At the heart of the article/summary is the unstated theory that since a disproportionate number of Black people commit crime, all Black people in the United States should be okay with being 2nd class citizens. Specifically:
- They should be okay with being presumed guilty and dangerous.
- They should be okay with having their freedom of movement restricted (stop and frisk, pullover traffic stops).
- And they should be okay with being killed or having violence done against them by police in larger numbers than other racial groups
Call it The Disproportionately Argument. (Somebody probably already has…)
Central to this argument is the idea that Black people are not victims of crime or rights violations but, in fact , are mainly the attackers. And so they have no reason to complain about how they’re treated by cops (or, really, by anyone...).
The example we see in this piece is:
“Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. This is according to FBI data, which also found that 40 percent of cop killers are black. According to MacDonald, the police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an unarmed black person.”
Last year, 42 cops were shot to death.
So if 40% of cop killers are Black people, then last year, roughly 17 police officers were shot to death by cop killers who were Black.
Last year, 1134 people were shot to death by police. 15% of those deaths were African American males aged 15-34.
So, last year, roughly, 170 unarmed African American men 15-34 were shot to death by cops.
Now, if Mr. Follan were writing this piece, the point might be that – even despite upticks this year – data shows that both police officers and Black civilians do not need to worry all that much, statistically speaking, about actually being killed by one another.
The analysis in this article makes no such observation.
I don’t know what observation the analysis in this article is making?
Is it that anti-misconduct activists shouldn’t object to 170 unarmed Black males, including children, being killed last year by trained, armed, professional law enforcement officers who are paid to serve and protect them …. because 17 officers were killed by criminals who shared the Black skin tone?
“Zip it, activists, because, proportionally speaking…”
Apparently, the disproportionality of Black criminals in general (not just cop killers) also justifies the disproportionality of Black civilian deaths by cop. Cops and Black people face off more often than other groups, thus, Black people will be killed more often than other groups.
Mac Donald and her summarizers gives us numbers to back up her point:
“…as MacDonald writes in The Wall Street Journal, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.
Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force,”
Now the irony here is, these above two paragraphs are supposed to be Mac Donald’s defense against claims any of this is racist.
First of all, let’s put aside the concept of due process for a second and presume, as this article does, that being “charged” is equal to being “guilty” . And let’s put aside all the different socio-economic factors that lead to some people being ‘charged’ and other people ‘getting away with a slap on the wrist because it’s powder not crack.” Or so forth. And while we’re at it, let’s also ignore the inflammatory nature of the 100% unsubstantiated throw-away appositive “often resisting.”
What we are left with is a statistic that on first glance points to some kind of pathology in the Black communities studied: “The Blacks are 15% of the population but committing 57% of the murders!”
Of course they’re not.
A specific demographic subgroup in this 15% of the population is committing 57% of the murders (or a major portion of them.). Are 70 year old Black women committing more violent crimes than 40 year old white men? Are Black toddlers committing more violent crimes than Hispanic 20-somethings?
Of course they’re not?
Black people and Black communities are not synonymous with criminals and criminal activity.We are not facing some pathological tendency in a “race” people. We are facing a trend in a very specific, small, and weird as it may sound, vulnerable American subgroup. This is a crucial distinction to make.
Let me correct that. This is a crucial distinction to make if your goal in investigating this topic is to reduce cop and civilian deaths by creating and supporting policy and intervention which reduce violence.
If your goal is simply to rail against people who’s race-based complaints and activism stir up your resentment, then, as you were.
But I am a playwright, so let me back myself here with some other people who do this for a living and see how they divide data into not just racial but gender and age and other categories to give us useful information:
I guess then, the disproportionality argument should be amended to say:
Given young Black men disproportionately commit violent crimes, the infringement on any and every Black person’s safety, civil rights and freedom by law enforcement and others is justified and shouldn’t be complained about and any lethal consequences that stem from these infringements should be overlooked as human error due to justified fear.
And of course, it’s still wrong.
But wait, Mac Donald and the article goes on with this idea of the fearsome Blacks. They point out that The Blacks may be scarier than we thought. Apparently, black criminality is under-reported:
“….unarmed black men are more likely to die by the gun of a cop than an unarmed white man… the ratio was seven-to-one of unarmed black men dying from police gunshots compared to unarmed white men…..
But, BUT that number “doesn’t tell the whole story…”
Apparently, according to Mac Donald’s scouring of police reports, often, “if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying.”
Oh, those silly victims of being shot to death and their zany antics!
She and the article then list some incidents where an unarmed person was killed but was with someone who was armed, etc. Fair enough. That should be addressed. How often does this happen? How does it skew results?
But, you may ask, what about the reverse?
Shouldn’t we examine cases of unarmed men who are listed as “armed” in police reports? What of cases where the policeman said he feared for his life but didn’t, he just made a fatal mistake and wanted to cover it up?
Don’t we need research and factor in those anecdotes too, to get the “whole story?
Unfortunately, the government doesn’t keep those records.
So, according to Mac Donald and this article’s writers, the way to get the “whole story” is to assume the police never lie and extrapolate on anecdotal evidence to the point you decide, eh, the heck with the research, even though your anecdotes at best mitigate but in no way erase the research. Conclusion: Blacks are much worse than we thought!
So zip it, activists!
The reason I bring this passage up is not to focus on shoddy crap “agenda journalism” masquerading as fact-based objective analysis.
Well, no, that is the reason I bring it up.
Because, really, the concept of “the whole story” is one that we need to respect.
But I mention it too because because this article takes a statistic that everyone should find unacceptable and which cannot in anyway be said to not include a racial component….and it dismisses it.
And that means we don’t work on fixing any issues which led to this awful ratio and these deaths.
And isn’t that the goal of researching and analyzing this subject? Finding truth? Finding solutions? All lives mattering?
Where did the capital letters go?
But the biggest dishonesty of the “disproportionality makes prejudice and its consequences okay” thing is–
Well, no, the biggest thing is it’s just wrong to say people don’t need to try to overcome prejudice and treat everyone sanely (that old chestnut) —
But the second biggest is here in Part 2
Thanks for reading,