Yes, you apparently have them.
Or are in areas where there are 2.5 times as many police patrols, or commit 2.5 times more crimes, or... any number of things. Hence the controls.
So if blacks are arrested more often it's because they are "picked on," but if whites are beat up more often it's because they are "aggressive and nasty"? The police judgment is faulty in deciding whom to arrest but their judgment in use of force is flawless?
You did read the article that ponderingturtle linked to, right? Like:
... from 11 large and middle-sized cities and one urban county ... geographically diverse, and five of the 11 are racially and ethnically diverse.
The results are that blacks have a 2.5 times higher likelihood that police uses force against them, compared to the overall rate, and 3.6 times more if compared only against white people. You insist on controlling for arrests, saying that then the rate would be only 30% (o.3 times) more for arrests.
Now try to solve this: If a 2.5 times higher likelihood of force by the police againt blacks results in only 0.3 times higher arrest rates, why could that be? Given the many reports of racial bias and straight out racism by parts of the police force, are you serieously trying to deny that blacks are obviously picked on more?
One would assume that the rate of arrests should also be 2.5 times higher then, if racism was not a cause. The idea that blacks in general commit more crimes, and thus the 2.5 times number, doesn't hold up when only 0.3 times more arrests are the result. Which, in all likelihood, could be the result of police starting out with more force against blacks in the first place.
Also, given that white people have a 10% higher rate of violent arrest strongly suggest that whites are more willing to resort to violence. Plus, it can be argued that the crimes they are arrested for are more severe, thus the violence when arrested.
You see, that's the fun with statistics. Using only raw numbers the stats can be made to show something you don't expect. A much better stat would be if it lists what the reason for the actual arrests were, what the outcomes were, etc. Like, a cop forcefully approacing a black persen, and then arresting that person "just because", only to be set free shortly after without any charges can easily be seen as a misapplication of force and arrest, while arresting a white person for something like shoplifting is to be expected.
But again, if you only go by numbers, and don't have the complete data, all that can be said in this case is that blacks face a disproportionate likelihood to be harassed by the police for virtually no real reason at all, besides racism. And thus, by only using the raw numbers, i can say that whites are more likely to have violent encounters with the police when it comes to arrests, and thus are more nasty in arrest situations. After all, you brought up the figure of 10% more white people involved in violent arrests.
I'm really wondering why you pretend to not understand that. What are the blacks actually arrested for, compared to whites, that they have a 30% higher rate? How comes a 2.5 times higher rate of encounters with the police involving force suddenly evaporates to only a 0.3 times higher rate of arrests? If blacks are more criminal, one would expect the arrest rate to track tghe 2.5 times figure more closely.
Greetings,
Chris
