[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Tweet from ProPublica (@ProPublica)

Tue Jul 30 18:05:56 UTC 2013

Just to be clear, I'm accusing anyone of ruminating about the Zimmerman case is complicit in the MSM attempt to distract the American public away from the important issues of privacy, anti-corruption, false-flag wars ...
Please go away.

________________________________
 From: Ricky Baldwin <rbaldwin at seiu73.org>
To: Paul Mueth <paulmueth at yahoo.com>; "<ewj at pigsqq.org>" <ewj at pigsqq.org> 
Cc: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; ocCUpy <occupycu at lists.chambana.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] [Peace-discuss] Tweet from ProPublica (@ProPublica)

I think he means pair up all categories to all other categories, the way the graph pairs up each other category to white-on-white violence, which would give us three more graphs like this.   But since the original sender did not conduct the study, it seems it's a rhetorical point only.  

It's unclear to me what we are supposed to think the wider comparisons would show, however.  The implication seems to be that the results would not be as interesting that way.  This is naturally the usual state of affairs when not looking at raw data, because the publisher of the study will select the most interesting results to illustrate a point -- in this case, black-on-black and black-on-white cases are far less likely than white-on-white cases to be found justifiable based on a Stand-Your-Ground defense, whereas white-on-black violence is far more likely than white-on-white violence to be found justifiable with the same defense. 

If, for example, the graph were to pair up black-on-black violence to black-on-white violence, which is more likely to found justifiable under SYG laws?  And, more importantly, -- what would the answer tell us?  I suppose we could all argue about that a while - er - have some interesting discussions about it.  But assuming someone is interested, it appears from the published graph that ... if B-on-W cases are over 50% less likely that W-on-W cases to be found justifiable, and B-on-B cases are it seems around 10% less likely, then ... it certainly appears that B-on-W cases are less likely than B-on-B cases to be found so.  I would argue that we'd need to know more than these statistics to draw much of a conclusion, but all the more so because of one point made in one of the links off the main article:

"...justifiable homicides are exceedingly rare. Between January 2005 and December 2009 there were more than 73,000 homicides in the United States but less than 2 percent (1,148) were found to be justifiable."

That's including all races, in both SYG and non-SYG states.  Separate out the SYG states, and we're looking at a pretty small sample -- especially since it sure likes like there are not many cases ruled justifiable that are black-on-black violence or black-on-white violence.  (This is interesting, but it still looks like it's mainly interesting if compared to the biggest category, which is white-on-black cases -- and presumably this is why the graph is the way it is.)

Actually, one of the more interesting (to me) points of the study, found in the article, was:

"A recent study suggests that laws may lead to more deaths. [...] the rates of murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased by 8 percent in states with Stand Your Ground laws. That’s an additional 600 homicides per year in the states that have enacted such laws."

... in other words, 600 more people, of whatever race or age or sex, that shouldn't have died the way they did..

Ricky
________________________________________
From: OccupyCU [occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Paul Mueth [paulmueth at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 12:42 PM
To: <ewj at pigsqq.org>
Cc: Peace Discuss; ocCUpy
Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] [Peace-discuss] Tweet from ProPublica (@ProPublica)

Duh , they're on the graph

Sent from my iPhone 3GS, It doesn't chat!

On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:50 AM, <ewj at pigsqq.org> wrote:

> how about blacks who kill blacks,
> blacks who kill whites
> and
> whites who kill whites?
>
> Since it's a 2 x 2 factorial study
> let's see all of the effects, how about?
>
>
>> -------Original Message-------
>> From: Paul Mueth <paulmueth at yahoo.com>
>> To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>, ocCUpy <occupycu at lists.chambana.net>
>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tweet from ProPublica (@ProPublica)
>> Sent: Jul 19 '13 09:47
>>
>> PROPUBLICA ([LINK: HTTPS://TWITTER.COM/PROPUBLICA] @PROPUBLICA)
>>
>> [LINK: https://twitter.com/propublica/status/357952420040568832] 7/18/13,
>> 2:58 PM
>> ➥[LINK: https://twitter.com/frontlinepbs] @frontlinepbs: Whites who kill
>> blacks in [LINK: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23StandYourGround&src=hash]
>> #StandYourGround states more likely found justified [LINK:
>> http://t.co/pssyExm7sG] propub.ca/15PtFzc [LINK: http://t.co/ViNUcoNQZi]
>> pic.twitter.com/ViNUcoNQZi
>> Download the official Twitter app [LINK:
>> https://twitter.com/download?ref_src=MailTweet-iOS] here
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 3GS, It doesn't chat!
>> --------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> [LINK: compose.php?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> [LINK: https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
OccupyCU mailing list
OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
_______________________________________________
OccupyCU mailing list
OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130730/0c282057/attachment.html>