09-17-2017, 12:28 PM
Hiding behind the "article". Typical, and sad.
Does the article define "far more likely". See, "far more likely" is a subjective term. If they crunched the numbers then they obviously have hard data to back this assertion up. This being the case, why would they not publish the hard numbers? The answer, to anyone vaguely familiar with the concept of logic, is that the hard numbers don't produce the impact they prefer to make their point, hence the deliberately ambiguous term, "far more likely".
I'll provide you with a for instance. Say, after acquiring all the data they found that whites who killed blacks were found to be justified in nine instances. Conversely, they found that blacks who killed whites were found to be justified in three cases. Is a difference of six, at such low numbers, "far more likely"? The answer is, it could be, largely depending on what the author of this study is trying to prove. This prompts a secondary question, with numbers so low does either occur enough to even warrant including them in any study. Unless the study is specifically on that subject, and not, say, on the topic of who gets the death penalty in general, the answer from a statistical standpoint (for anyone familiar with the concept of statistics) would be no.
Let us also look at the intentionally inflammatory claim, "This is a creative way for the system to say, “Yes, you killed someone, but we're going to allow you to continue living your life even though an innocent black man is dead." First, let us examine two mutually exclusive concepts. White man kills black man, shooting ruled justified. if the intentional killing of a person is ruled justified then, logically, the person killed was doing something they should not be doing, hence their being killed was ruled lawful. Is this an absolute? Well, by using the specific term "justifiable" the answer becomes almost certainly, yes. If they included accidental shootings that were not charged as an honest accident then we'd have a different story, but they specifically used the term "justifiable". You don't get to justifiably shoot someone who is just walking down the street, they have to be engaged in an activity that justifies their being shot, by the very definition of the term. Why does the article not provide more detail in this regard? For the same reason above, it doesn't fit their narrative.
Lastly, does this study include police shootings? If it does then the study becomes even more meaningless. If it doesn't it should specifically say so. The USAToday article would seem to implicate that it does with the statement;
Look specifically at the claim, "already presumes something about the deceased, that they were committing a felonious act." This is so inane as to be meaningless. If a LEO sees a person beating another person with a baseball bat the suspect is engaging in a felonious act. The only presumption of such a felony act is in the legal sense as the person has, obviously, not been convicted in a court of law of said felonious act. This does not prevent any reasonable person from reaching the logical and obvious conclusion that the suspect is engaged in a felonious act.
The purpose of such a study should be to inform, there should be no ambiguity in a hard data study. If there is ambiguity then one must question why. The answer will likely lead one to discount the study altogether. This article wants to steer you in a certain direction. It employs numerous avenues of deceit in order to do so. It is also written by a man whose impartiality on this subject is without question, non-existent.
Then why does this article exist? It exists solely to feed the preconceived ideas of people like OP, who lap up this pablum with relish. A more discerning, logical perusal of this article finds holes so large as to drive a truck through. Whomever put this study together is a very poor scientist Dr. Venkman. Thank you and enjoy your Sunday, all.
Does the article define "far more likely". See, "far more likely" is a subjective term. If they crunched the numbers then they obviously have hard data to back this assertion up. This being the case, why would they not publish the hard numbers? The answer, to anyone vaguely familiar with the concept of logic, is that the hard numbers don't produce the impact they prefer to make their point, hence the deliberately ambiguous term, "far more likely".
I'll provide you with a for instance. Say, after acquiring all the data they found that whites who killed blacks were found to be justified in nine instances. Conversely, they found that blacks who killed whites were found to be justified in three cases. Is a difference of six, at such low numbers, "far more likely"? The answer is, it could be, largely depending on what the author of this study is trying to prove. This prompts a secondary question, with numbers so low does either occur enough to even warrant including them in any study. Unless the study is specifically on that subject, and not, say, on the topic of who gets the death penalty in general, the answer from a statistical standpoint (for anyone familiar with the concept of statistics) would be no.
Let us also look at the intentionally inflammatory claim, "This is a creative way for the system to say, “Yes, you killed someone, but we're going to allow you to continue living your life even though an innocent black man is dead." First, let us examine two mutually exclusive concepts. White man kills black man, shooting ruled justified. if the intentional killing of a person is ruled justified then, logically, the person killed was doing something they should not be doing, hence their being killed was ruled lawful. Is this an absolute? Well, by using the specific term "justifiable" the answer becomes almost certainly, yes. If they included accidental shootings that were not charged as an honest accident then we'd have a different story, but they specifically used the term "justifiable". You don't get to justifiably shoot someone who is just walking down the street, they have to be engaged in an activity that justifies their being shot, by the very definition of the term. Why does the article not provide more detail in this regard? For the same reason above, it doesn't fit their narrative.
Lastly, does this study include police shootings? If it does then the study becomes even more meaningless. If it doesn't it should specifically say so. The USAToday article would seem to implicate that it does with the statement;
Quote:Crimes are deemed justifiable when the person attacking has reason to believe they are in danger or are witnessing a crime. This label of “justifiable homicide,” which can be categorized as “felon killed by private citizen” or “felon killed by police officer,” already presumes something about the deceased, that they were committing a felonious act.
Look specifically at the claim, "already presumes something about the deceased, that they were committing a felonious act." This is so inane as to be meaningless. If a LEO sees a person beating another person with a baseball bat the suspect is engaging in a felonious act. The only presumption of such a felony act is in the legal sense as the person has, obviously, not been convicted in a court of law of said felonious act. This does not prevent any reasonable person from reaching the logical and obvious conclusion that the suspect is engaged in a felonious act.
The purpose of such a study should be to inform, there should be no ambiguity in a hard data study. If there is ambiguity then one must question why. The answer will likely lead one to discount the study altogether. This article wants to steer you in a certain direction. It employs numerous avenues of deceit in order to do so. It is also written by a man whose impartiality on this subject is without question, non-existent.
Then why does this article exist? It exists solely to feed the preconceived ideas of people like OP, who lap up this pablum with relish. A more discerning, logical perusal of this article finds holes so large as to drive a truck through. Whomever put this study together is a very poor scientist Dr. Venkman. Thank you and enjoy your Sunday, all.
