Point One: against Broken Window Policing

'When it was initially implemented' is a huge factor there. You want an example of how targeted aggressive law enforcement over minor incidents overall creates a more hostile environment with police viewing the populace they serve not as a community they are members of, but as animals in a zoo? Look at, I dunno, all of America. Cops have, over the last 30 years, become increasingly disconnected from the communities they serve. Part of it is the militarization of the police forces, but it's also a matter of approach. The more you focus the police on looking for the bad in everyone they're encountering, the more they see it.

That's completely without getting into the other side of the equation - that unequal enforcement creates a legitimate atmosphere of oppression... and believe me, enforcement will always be unequal. If you think it won't, then ask yourself why, in the NYPD under Giuliani, that shining star of 'Broken Windows' you're holding up, we never heard of cases where a white man was taken into the bathroom and repeatedly sodomized with nightsticks, or shot nineteen times with forty-one rounds fired by four officers... for reaching for his wallet.

When you can point to evidence that shows that 'Brokwn Windows' enforcement is actively and rigorously applied in an equitable manner, and not being used as a cash cow by departments using misdemeanor offenses as a way to generate ticket revenue, then maybe you can make a case that you're not actually fomenting exactly the opposite of that systemic change you say is the end game. Then maybe you have a leg to stand on when you excoriate BLM because you feel they only think police brutality affects them.

As an analogy I've used in the past, think of the way policing is used in thie country like the wooden hull of a boat. It's old, it's creaky, it generally gets the job done, but there are some leaks. There is also, demonstrably, a fucking hole in the bottom. The bilge pumps can more or less keep the boat afloat, most of the time, but it's definitely there. What you're doing is saying 'the whole hull matters' - and it's true, every little leak is a problem. But there is a separate and distinct problem, too - there's a fucking hole in the boat. Tightening up the loose boards, re-apply the water seal to the wood, getting the barnacles off, upgrading the bilge pumps, these are all wonderful things that will certainly help the overall performance of the boat... but fix the fucking hole in the boat.

You start off from the position that BLM doesn't have a legitimate grievance. You may want to say you're not, but just the fact that you think 'they believe police brutality only affects them' shows that. They don't think it only affects them. They think it disproportionately affects them. They're right, too.


Point Two: Arguing against giving minorities special privileges like BLM demand
You are either being willfully ignorant, or you're just being stupid. I'd like to think you're just being stupid, because it doesn't involve intentional malfeasance. The evidence is perfectly clear that black men are being killed by police officers at a higher rate, regardless of the levels of overall violent crime in that jurisdiction - that there are two levels of effect in play: the overall level of police brutality, the 'all lives matter' stage, and then the additional level of police brutality against black men.

These are separate and distinct things. If a man has trouble moving around because he has arthritis, then sure, you treat the arthritis. If he also has trouble moving around because someone stuck a knife in his leg, the arthritis medication isn't going to help that. Get the knife out. Treat the wound.

Point Three: Looking at statistics

(Rate of crime and police killing)
Doesn't matter. The relative positions on the chart don't change when you make the numbers into decimals - and you know this. The fact is that the differing scales make police killings 'look much larger' in all areas, but the critical data point isn't the police killings as an absolute number, but rather the relative comparison of how many killings occur in violent jurisdictions vs how many occur in non-violent jurisdictions. As both statistics are relational, ie: comparisons made within their set, the fact that they are individually presented in a way that puts the numbers into a range that people easily grasp is irrelevant. But nice try.

(if suicide by cop is included in police killing)
Again, this is statistically irrelevant, as there's no evidence that the rate of 'suicide by cop' varies across population centers. Thus, it does not affect the relation between the rate at which police in San Francisco shoot people, and the rate at which police in Philadelphia shoot people.

(Blacks commit crimes at a higher rate)
Do they? Or do they get arrested at a higher rate? Just because whites aren't being arrested for all of the little things they do doesn't mean they're not doing them. It does mean they don't show up in the reported statistics, though. And since you're an advocate of 'Broken Windows' enforcement arrests, how would those statistics change if we included other misdemeanors that typically aren't even ticketed - like an entire highway full of drivers going 10-15mph over the speed limit.

It's important to note here that I'm not advocating that the cops should be pulling over two thousand cars in a quarter-mile stretch of the Long Island Expressway to arrest them all so that those violations of the law show up accurately on crime statistics - that's just 'Broken Windows' policing. And it goes back to the point about unequal enforcement.

(Pointing to how small the issue of police violence is)
20 per 1 million. 6,400 people. By 1984, the AIDS epidemic hadn't yet killed that many people annually (it would soon get far, far higher than that, mind you), but it was already considered an epidemic, even though it was killing 2-4,000 people a year. Cut that 20 down to 6, and you're still in 'epidemic' numbers - and plenty of jurisdictions are above 6. So... gonna have to say you're wrong on that one.

(Citing data of blacks are far more likely to attack police officers)
You definitely are a simple person. No, if you attempt to use lethal force on the police, they are specifically trained and equipped to not use lethal force in response unless they have no other choice. Typically, individuals firing on police are undisciplined shooters who will fire in a general direction while trying to run, and who will not reload, preferring to focus on escape. And, just to specifically put this in the context of your handy pie chart - from the actual document it's from (as opposed to a site using it to justify police-involved-shootings):

"Police officers shall not discharge their weapons to subdue a fleeing felon who presents no threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to themselves or another person present."

And that's just point 4 of 9 in the 'shall not discharge their weapons' litany. So let's just put that out there, because it's important to understand that no, firing on a cop isn't instantly signing your death warrant, but thanks for illustrating your very simplistic view of Police-Community relations, and let me tell you right now that if I'd delivered that 'pool of red liquid' line at Thanksgiving, I'd have at least half a dozen cops kicking my ass for calling them trigger-happy maniacs.

Point 4 there is also a large factor in why white subjects are more likely to be shot by cops after firing on them - the white guys are generally the ones who are not in a position to run away, or who are initially belligerent and choose not to - as in the case of Officer Dinkheller. They're more likely to stand and fight, rather than attempt to flee and evade capture. Minorities, on the other hand, are more likely to attempt to use indiscriminate gunfire as a means of keeping officers' heads down while they run. And yes, for the record, nobody who knows cops or has cops in their family is even marginally unaware of the dangers of the 'routine' traffic stop. Dinkheller is only one example of many, many incidents where a cop's been shot during a traffic stop. It's something we worry about quite a lot.

One very interesting statistic your pie chart there doesn't show is the overlap. Black subjects make up 79% of the individuals who fire on police, and 69% if the subjects who are killed by police. They also make up, by the by, 75% of the armed subjects confronted by police. Note that those aren't a direct correlation. It's not like only 10% of the black subjects who fired on police were taken in alive, after all. I mean, that'd be reasonably impossible. You know why?

Because that whole pie chart of 'Subjects Firing on Police' is 19 guys. 19. I mean, it's really lovely how they've edited the chart to sell your narrative, but go ahead and look on p24 of the original source. Black 79% is 'Black 79% (15)'. And again, those two numbers, the 15 black guys who fired on cops, and the 11 black guys killed by cops, aren't necessarily related. After all, of the 0 asian people who fired on police, 1 of them was killed. Oh, and just to make it even better: of the 15 blacks who fired on cops in 2012, 20 of them were struck by police gunfire.

In fact, direct comparison between those two charts is completely wrong. Why? Because they're two charts out of a set, and all four charts together are still incomplete information. There were 45 ID-AC incidents in 2012, involving 46 subjects. 11 officers were shot in these incidents. 60 officers fired their weapons during these incidents, injuring 14 subjects and killing 16. Now, I'm going to be optimistic here and say that I really do hope that means multiple officers hit each of the subjects who were shot, because otherwise, fully half of them missed.

And for the record, 13 officers were shot by criminals in 2012, not the 11 involved in the ID-AC incidents that your chart shows. So right from the start? Your charts don't show what you claim they show. They do not show the breakdown of who shot at cops. They only show the breakdown of who shot at cops in incidents where police fired as well. For your larger point, they are incomplete. Quoting them in the context you are quoting them does not necessarily make your conclusions incorrect, but it is definitely wrong to use those charts as their basis. 4 additional officers were injured in ID-AC incidents - 2 stabbed, and 2 bludgeoned. Note that those are also incidents where police fired their weapons, and so more data not shown on the charts you are citing. A grand total of 0 NYPD personnel were killed in these incidents. But once again: your charts do not show the complete story. It's important to remember that as we go forward.

As a result, we have a horribly incomplete picture from your charts, and one that's easily used to present a biased opinion. For example: 46 people involved in ID-AC incidents. 16 of them were killed. We know the 16 who were killed weren't all individuals who shot at the police - no Asian subjects fired on police, but one of them died. We also don't know how many of those 46 were complete bystanders. We can, however, firmly establish that out of the 46, 32 had firearms, and at least 4 more had weapons of some sort (2 stabbings, 2 bludgeonings). We don't know about the other 10. Maybe they had knives. Maybe they were bystanders. Maybe they were the 3 cases where the officer was threatened with a moving vehicle. How well does your chart cover those?

Oh, and hey, just as a total aside, remember Eric Garner? He wouldn't show up on your charts, either - no firearm discharged by the officers.

So really, if you want to talk about 'problems with your charts'... hmmm... you've got some issues with mine that are pretty blatantly misdirection, but the ones you're relying on aren't even about what you say they're about. But let's keep going, shall we?

You're using these charts to draw general inferences, like...

Part 4: Attempting to refute statistics that go against BLM

(Point to data showing Blacks are more likely to be aggressive with suspects)
Except that, of course, 46 individuals involved in ID-AC encounters, and only 19 are represented on your chart of who's shooting at the police. 30 of the 46 were shot... and 11 officers were shot (in the same set of 46 incidents) and 4 more injured by other means. So 15 officers injured, 30 other people shot. If you're going to try to make the case that cops only shoot the persons who are being aggressive toward them, and trying to use 'look who shoots at cops!' as your benchmark, you're going to need to do better.

But taken in context - that these represents all of 19 individuals shooting at police officers in all of 45 incidents - again, in a city of 10,000,000 people... this is statistical noise. If 1 more white person had fired on police, that would be enough to move the chart by 5%. It's simply not a large enough sample to draw conclusions from.

Those numbers, btw, do change slightly if we look at 'Identified Shooting Suspects - feel free to check p25. Again, there are no conclusions to be drawn there, except that two pie charts, taken out of context, aren't quite the 'ERHMAGERD!!!' you seem to want them to be. You're making a lot of hay here on 45 incidents.


(Point to how black communities need to step up to stop this cycle as well.)
Yes, what does 45 ID-AC incidents mean in a city of 10 million? Please, professor, extract for me the deeper meaning of how a 0.00046% incidence rate is indicative of a collapse of the social structure in black communities. You weren't able to get there with the large overall homicide rate in NYC, so let's see you really get into the details on how a statistically non-existent smaller set of data means Teh Blaques are bringing it all on themselves.

And for the record, 'pigs' is a hell of a lot older than BLM, and comes out of the white beatnik subculture of the 1950s. And no, nobody - especially the individuals active with in the organizing and representation of the BLM movement - thinks it's justifiable to kill and injure police. That's a damned lie and a straw man, and you know it. At every turn, these individuals have expressed a desire for justice, not vengeance, and they've called on the communities that have been affected to face their oppressors peacefully, and with dignity.