Yeah. You know what is even worse than this? Educated people or institutions who know only too well the details but manipulate them to support a narrative.
I was going to post this yesterday, completed the post, but then thought fuck it and what's the point. But why the hell not. It's not like I have anything better to do this morning!
@Blueberry_87 is going to hate me for this one! Sorry!

You know I mean well!
Right. The above is a link to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Now I don't know if that's in any way affiliated to Harvard University. But given the link I make the assumption that it is. And if not: it's an easy assumption to make mistakenly. Either way: easy to assume that it's credible research. Especially to the uninformed or those that look at headlines, have a quick look at the content, and then go shooting (no pun intended) their mouths off (whether it be on the Internet or a riot or whatever) (pick your poison).
Here's the headline (and, to be frank, until this fiasco all started, was exactly the impression that I was under):
"Black people more than three times as likely as white people to be killed during a police encounter".
Fair enough. If you read just a little bit further it goes on to say in certain AREAS this is true. Very short on detail on the link though.
Then, perplexingly, there's a link from the institutional site to none other than United Press International of all fucking places.
A four-year Harvard University analysis released Wednesday shows that black Americans were, on average, more than three times as likely as white people to be killed during a police encounter.
www.upi.com
And here's their headline:
"Study: Black Americans 3 times more likely to be killed by police".
Once again and fair enough: they give a little more detail. But for sure also go out of their way to emphasize the narrative.
Finally, and oddly enough, they have a link to the ACTUAL study:
Background & methods Recent social movements have highlighted fatal police violence as an enduring public health problem in the United States. To solve it, the public requires basic information, such as understanding where rates of fatal police violence are particularly high, and for which...
journals.plos.org
Title of the study:
"Mapping fatal police violence across U.S. metropolitan areas: Overall rates and racial/ethnic inequities, 2013-2017".
So now, finally, we get to the meat on the bone. And how many do you think would go to this trouble? Most people here, as but one example, don't even read the fucking thread before blasting away. I think it's therefore safe to assume that the majority of American's would bother to go this far. And certainly not those that are burning the house down.
And this high powered, complicated, and convoluted study shows what exactly? Well: it's obvious from the ACTUAL study that there are certain AREAS where the narrative holds true. But then they start getting too clever and try to extrapolate the data out in order to try and make their case and prove that in America, generally speaking, after much fudging and mathematical gymnastics, black people are 3 times for likely to be killed by law enforcement than white people.
Here's the bottom line and from the study itself:
"Of the included 5494 fatalities involving police from 2013–2017, 2353 ( 42.83% ) of the decedents were White, 1487 ( 27.07% ) were Black, 939 were Latinx ( 17.09% ), and 168 ( 3.06% ) were other race/ethnicities, while 547 lacked data on race/ethnicity. Nationally, from our first set of models, the annual rate of fatal police violence was 0.39 per 100,000 ( 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.37,0.42 )."
Now you can stand on your head and whistle Yankee Doodle through your ass: those figures do NOT support the narrative being pushed by all and sundry.
To the study's credit: what it DOES prove is that in certain AREAS the socioeconomic conditions play a huge role. And of course: the sheer numbers of different race and ethnicities in certain AREAS plays a huge role. But it falls on it's backside, and makes shit, when they attempt to come up with a broad average for the entire country.
Point is: do you think your average [insert name of civil rights group] member, rioting in the streets, and suing the police, or baying for the blood of officers, is aware of such detail? Or if they'd even give a shit if they were? Nope. I don't think so.
Anyway. Have fun.
Oh and in closing for now:
Oh how quickly people forget. This comment in references made to New York earlier on the thread to the "Giuliani Era". Well unless it's the media (again): as far as I know New York had become a fucking war zone when Mayor Giuliani was appointed. And he sorted the shit out not? No tolerance for crime and the "broken windows" theory? MORE and better kitted out law enforcement officers were a part of the plan. As far as I remember: it worked not? (Oh sorry my bad,: it was the CIA's fault)!