this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
609 points (98.0% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

5478 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Yes I agree with you 100%, I've never on any occasion argued against any of that.

Actually, the data has been largely unreliable since at least 2015, as James Comey while he was head of the FBI puts it: "I think it’s embarrassing for those of us in government who care deeply about these issues, especially the use of force by law enforcement, that we can’t have an informed discussion because we don’t have data. People have data about who went to a movie last weekend or how many books were sold or how many cases of the flu walked into an emergency room, and I cannot tell you how many people were shot by police in the United States last month, last year, or anything about the demographics, and that’s a very bad place to be." All US Federal data on police use of force is self-reported since forever.

For about 2 decades, largely one of the biggest sources for data was Philip M. Stinson, who tracked nationwide shootings with Google Alerts. There was also another great study on the matter by PNAS called "Risk of being Killed by Police in the United States by Age, Race-ethnicity, and Sex".