Sorry dude. I am not going to take the time for that challenge. I only point out that the data is suspect because of the source. You posted it as if it has assumed authority, and I question it because of it's obvious bias and because bare statistics are never to be trusted. That is all.
Why do you not support the police mentioned on that site? You would support an officer shown on video to be doing things that would put them on their tally sheet wouldn't you?
I'm not sure what your actual question is there, Sherp. I do not trust any statistics from any website that is agenda-driven, and neither should you. Statistics are meaningless without context. Those of you who back your arguments by offering such stand-alone statistics are using a weak tactic that usually does not stand up to scrutiny. It is a common logical fallacy that we all see in use on these forums quite often. I am only pointing out that this fallacy doesn't bolster your argument like you think it does. I am not claiming here that the data is wrong or that your conclusion from such is wrong (although I suspect so), but that your argument is relying on a fallacy. Don't worry about it. You're in good company.....
What political office do you hold since you simultaneously call the information a fallacy while you aren't saying it is wrong? You got backed in to a corner and you started the Clinton double speak I see.
Do you not understand the difference between a logical fallacy and "wrong"? You need some remedial education. Get out your google-fu and get to work.
