That is not what I've said at all, nor does the prosecutor's dilemma apply, except that it suggests people in the discussion are not listening to what I've said and are instead applying confirmation bias.
In your Wiki example:
if a perpetrator is known to have the same blood type as a defendant and 10% of the population share that blood type, then to argue on that basis alone that the probability of the defendant being guilty is 90% makes the prosecutors's fallacy
The prosecutor's dilemma involves transferring the likelihood of a blood type to the likelihood of guilt. Guilt and blood types are obviously different things.
I am applying the likelihood of racist behavior to the likelihood of racist behavior. And I've said multiple times I am not drawing the conclusion the likelihood of racist behavior means Wilson murdered Brown.
To use the prosecutor's dilemma as an analogy, my point would be people in the debate are insisting the 90% of the population that can be eliminated by the blood evidence is not relevant evidence to be considered in the deliberations.
The data only refers to the likelihood the defendant's blood type is the same type as the perpetrator (blood found at the scene). It says nothing about guilt or innocence, only blood type.
But it is relevant and it is evidence.
So going from the analogy to this case, let's say 90% of the Ferguson police have some racist influenced behavior, in particular: assuming a young black male is a criminal until proven otherwise, treating all young black men confrontationally at first approach, while not approaching young white males the same way and so on. That doesn't make 90% of the department racists. But it does mean 90% of the department acts on preconceived biases about young black men they encounter on the job. (You can use a smaller %, the principles are the same.)
Let's say 10% are actually full blown racist and 10% actively resist racist behavior in themselves and of their coworkers.
That gives Wilson a 10% chance of being a great guy, 10% chance of being an outright racist and 80% chance of at least policing with racially biased preconceptions about young black men he polices. Regardless of lowering the 80%, it is still greater than 50% given the DoJ report.
We don't have the actual percentages, but we do know the influence of suspect's race on police behavior was prevalent enough in the department for the DoJ to find it serious. We also know racism was bad enough in the police department where Wilson got his initial experience that the whole department had to be dissolved and rebuilt from scratch. He has spent his whole career in racist police departments. The odds that had no effect on his own police behavior are small. Is it possible he was one of the smaller percent that resisted treating blacks without preconceptions? Yes, but the probability is not high.
Is that evidence Wilson is a racist cop? No. Is it evidence there was a
high likelihood Wilson had biases against blacks that affected how he interacted with young black males? Yes Does that mean he murdered Brown? Of course not.
It's one piece of evidence that is relevant. It's not proof of anything. Just like the matching blood types, it adds weight but it is not a determinant in and of itself.
Just as the matching blood types eliminated 90% of the population, it's only one piece of evidence to consider. We have another piece:
One witness said the initial encounter was significantly confrontational, both the order to get on the sidewalk and the speeding of Wilson's car in reverse to return to where the young men were.
Scenario one: Instead of calmly approaching two men to interview them, Wilson confronted them in an aggressive way. The witness says this is the scenario.
Scenario two: Wilson calmly approached the two and Brown attacked Wilson. Why do that? If you were worried about the recent robbery, why not take off running before Wilson got out of his vehicle?
The witness said Wilson opened his car door hitting Brown with it, Brown responded by punching Wilson, a gun was drawn, in a struggle, Brown was wounded. Multiple witness saw a struggle at the vehicle through the window with Wilson inside, Brown outside. The forensic's match this scenario.
There is no reason not to conclude this is what happened.
Wilson was confrontational, a confrontation ensued. It contributed to the subsequent events. It might have been a completely different situation had Wilson not made it confrontational from the start.
That is the very thing the DoJ found in Ferguson. And we've seen it multiple times on news videos with excessive needless beatings of people who run, with pepper spray in the eyes of peaceful protestors. And with shooting fleeing suspects in the back who did not pose the threat that was necessary for that level of force.
We also see nervous overreactions that lead to dozens of bullets pumped into people holding cell phones and screwdrivers. And we see outright mistakes that become lethal like this old man playing cop in the latest killing who thought he was firing a taser but which turned out to be a gun. There was the baby injured by a compression grenade that landed in his crib. And the 12 yr old with a toy who was shot within seconds of the police arrival and the guy in the Walmart who had a pellet gun from the store shelf that was killed.
Police attitudes, police training, preconceived biases against certain people, police ambiance within a department, you can't just ignore all this and say cop good, black male bad. You can't say Brown was a thug because he pushed a store clerk and reacted to an aggressive cop while not also considering the majority of police in Ferguson were needlessly confrontational against young black men.
When I get time later I'll address how I looked at the DoJ discussion of the eyewitnesses. It's another place I've been falsely accused of not looking at the evidence.
