You are referring to something called the Bayesian argument for “Rational Discrimination” which incorrectly assumes “that if racial identity incrementally increases the likelihood that an ambiguous Black man is about to attack then it is reasonable to use deadly force against the Black more quickly than a similarly situated White.” (Professor Jody Amour–arguing against racial profiling)

Even if your stats back you up, it’s unreasonable to “shoot first ask questions later” because this rationale ignores the significant social costs of acting on this rule in error and killing random innocent black men. It’s like saying “If I don’t shoot this random black man, there’s a small increased statistical chance that I could be hurt (vs if he were white). My life is worth more than his since he’s just some black man, but I’m a (white black or other) police officer. Therefore it’s reasonable for me to shoot him based on my un-substantiated pre-judgment based upon his race and some obscure manipulable statistics.

That’s some faulty, dangerous, ass backward math that equates to open license to just kill any random black man and say you felt “threatened” because of the statistics. GET IT TOGETHER.

Also, before I were to make statement about the unfortunate death of a white Houston man, I’d need to know more about the specifics.

Garret, did the men you asked disagree with the premise that wealthy, white male lives are more valuable or the premise that we are taught to believe they are?

According to statistics compiled from police departments around the country, black suspects are five times more likely to be fatally shot by police than white suspects.

However, the statistics also show that police are five times more likely to die at the hands of a black suspect than a white suspect.

That is why black police officers are so quick to shoot black subjects whom they suspect have a gun. Not because they too have been indoctrinated with racism, but because they understand the statistics — probably even better than their white counterparts.

Why is the “shoot first, ask questions later” rule applied to INNOCENT black and brown men at VASTLY disproportionate rates? Is it because these men are inherently threatening? Why are they perceived as such? Is it because it’s better to shoot one of them–one less threatening black/brown man on the street, after all–than take the very very obscure and rare chance that this stereotype might be true just this once, despite a lack of real tangible evidence that they pose a real threat?

This is real. Matt’s post gets right to the real. And those who balk at its content should ask whether this nonsense would happen if these were random, innocent white men and if 50 shots were scattered around midtown Manhattan.

I suppose the family shouldn’t hold its breath waiting for Rev. Sharpton to come help with this case.

Tell me, Matt. Is the Houston shooting “deeply rooted in white supremacist capitalist patriarchy?”

I personally know three police officers, none of whom are “white”, and I’m pretty sure none of them would agree with the premise above.