the difference is in what data is selected for the studies

This is exactly my point. Using statistics to "prove" a problem that might not exist is erroneous.
Here is a simple example.

You own a company that makes watches. You suspect or assume there is a "problem" that one of your employees is stealing merchandise.

You look at raw data that shows you purchased enough raw materials to make 1000 watches but you only shipped 950 watches. You can jump to the conclusion this "proves" you were right.

But after looking deeper into the data you find that some material was rejected on first inspection, some hands,springs etc were damaged during production and that some final pieces were rejected because of flaws.

You find that after looking at ALL the data there was no problem with employees stealing merchandise.

To assume that a Black person is pulled over 30% more than a White person "proves" it is because of skin color or racism without looking at why(stolen car,repair etc),where(high crime area,urban, rural etc) and other mitigating factors is disingenuous.

This includes all these "statistics" that "prove" "institutional racism" among other false claims.

Racism baiters love these raw statistics because few if any look at ALL the data.

Yes, again, you are stopping too soon in your analysis of ALL of the data that you are concerned about. You need to step back another few paces, metaphorically speaking, and recognize that there are a number of social and political dynamics involved as well.

It is NOT as simple as that some "race baiters" as you call them, are attempting to get things they should not, or to force change which will not help or will even make things worse.

It is ALSO true that there are other people working not just in the opposite direction, but at CROSSPURPOSES (a subtle phrase most people actually misunderstand and misapply), as well.

These other people WANT you to focus on the crudely misapplied, and only partial statistical data. Some hope you will just ignore the statistics, and allow them to carry on as they are; some hope you will be galvanized by the statistics and misinterpret them as well, so that they can push another agenda advantageous to them, and some want you to be distracted by the fight between the statistic mongers and the statistic debunkers, in order that they can simultaneously feed off of and profit from BOTH sides, while making sure that the conflicts continue.

I am a professional troubleshooter and problem solver, so I understand thoroughly what you are referring to. I am presented with problems regularly, for which data has been gathered, and solutions proposed which have failed, and I recognize as you are talking about, that many times people haven't looked at the DETAILS of the data well enough to put it to use.

The thing is, not to STOP at that point and pitch a fuss about how statistics don't apply.

People who do that are plentiful in our modern world, and are promoting that we should ignore everything from racially based conflicts and cultural clashes, to effects of worldwide pollution, all on the grounds that the statistics can't be used simplistically.

Don't let the fact that there ARE people who want to misuse the data we have, to do more damage, cause you to refuse to recognize that there IS a serious problem to be dealt with.

My concern with your post, is that since you ONLY complain about the misuse of statistics in this one area, and say nothing about the problem itself, you give the APPEARANCE of siding with those who want nothing to be done.

I don't understand what you are claiming with that.

There is no UNIFIED race-based movement on any side of any of the many issues where race plays a part.

How can it be that you fail to see the MANY "groups" who use statistics to "prove" or "disprove" their side?

You don't see BLM as a race based movement? How blind is that.
Their whole premise is that BLACK lives matter...not ALL lives.

I do recognize there are "groups" who use statistics for many reasons as an example, Hospitals needing more funding because statistics show an increase in admissions. Of course there are many reasons people use statistics for many different reasons.

The OP was related to how statistics are used to make a case about a "serious" problem(in your words) that the statistics don't support.

black lives matter holds the premise that black lives matter TOO

its premise is justice that is applied to black victims TOO

it has not been discredited or debunked

media has gotten a hold of one individuals 'study' with very sparse and undefined data

I hope your kidding MS.
After Months of investigation by the grand jury in which many black witnesses testified that the victim never raised his hands or tried to surrender AND Obama's own Department Of Justice investigation, BOTH found that he never raised his hands it was a justified shooting.

Unfortunately it didn't fit the Divider in Chief's or his proxy liberal media's agenda and it didn't get much press.

But I'm sure your intelligent enough to find these FACTS if you research it.

'many' black witnesses? how many actually saw it how 'many' black witnesses said he did?

and where did DOJ state he never raised his hands?


I did look at the facts, what did you look at?


and back on topic, Mike Brown is one of many cases so why do people always bring it back to him?

smh

the 'narrative' hands up don't shoot is not a false narrative

it is symbolic representation of how it feels to be scared you will be shot unless you make the officers feel completely at ease by holding your hands up

and once again, the DOJ cleared Wilson of committing civil violations, that's all


and there was no case to 'clear' Wilson because the prosecutor discredited his own witnesses in a grand jury hearing


and also, once again, BLM is about a lot more than Mike Brown

That is such B.S.
I would suggest you read the actual transcripts of the Grand Jury testimony not some biased "report" from a third party.
They are public records and available to read for yourself.

As for the DOJ cleared Wilson of committing civil violations."thats all" is twisting the truth in the extreme. If he was shot with his hands up, that would have been a violation of his civil rights in the eyes of the DOJ!

that's only relevant if they can 'prove' his hands were up,, not being able to prove it happened is not the same as proving it didn't.