Don't you think you should also include crime rate in this analysis?
And split it by areas. I don't think anyone would find if suspicious that cops kill more people in crime-infested poor neighborhood with constant gang violence than in a high-middle class London suburb.
No. The prevalence of crime should not in itself be an excuse for the police to use lethal force.
Or maybe you meant to argue that crime rate is an indicator for general lawlessness of the population, in which case crime rate and police violence are two sides of the same coin?
ryana posted a link re crime rates not really making a difference.
"While some have blamed violent crime for being responsible for police violence in some communities, data shows that high levels of violent crime in cities did not appear to make it any more or less likely for police departments to kill people."
Your turn to back up your claim that "Crime rate is correlated with amount of situations where use of lethal force is necessary."
Yeah, I'm still waiting to get free 30 minutes to check the actual data and compare it to data outside of US.
My initial assumption was based on the soviet research from the late 80s on this subject, but I couldn't easily find a link right now. (Yes, I know what you think of soviet police system, and you're right in general, but I know the people who did this research and the political climate itself was pretty vegetarian too at the time).
Yes, What else could it possibly have been about? You don't seem to be a native English speaker, so I thought you didn't understand what "aren't means.
It's a bit curious that you haven't answered my original question, or come back with anything substantive apart from expressing surprise at someone not understanding what you meant by "Aren't?"
And split it by areas. I don't think anyone would find if suspicious that cops kill more people in crime-infested poor neighborhood with constant gang violence than in a high-middle class London suburb.