Unarmed Black Children Are Not Being Gunned Down By Cops

Demonstrators gather in April to protest the fatal police shooting of Crown Heights native Saheed Vassell on Utica Avenue and Montgomery Street.Taidgh Barron/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Atrios declares Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post one of America’s Worst Humans today. The link goes to the Splinter’s Katherine Krueger, who explains:

Gather ‘round before I have a fucking stroke.

Kessler’s “analysis” column was responding to a reader who asked about a viral [Beto] O’Rourke clip, during which the congressman, who is running against Ted Cruz, says: “Black men, unarmed, black teenagers, unarmed, and black children, unarmed, are being killed at a frightening level right now, including by members of law enforcement without accountability and without justice.”

But Glenn, tell me, are we really killing so many unarmed black kids?…Perhaps most egregiously, Kessler cast aside the case of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old who was murdered by a police officer while holding a toy gun….So, the “frightening” part is NOT that police officers are gunning down literal children in our streets. In fact—*shoving glasses up nose, sniveling wildly*—that’s actually statistically quite rare, you see!! As if the very idea that police are killing anyone, particularly children, in our streets AT ALL is not “frightening” enough. This column is what happens when you’re straining so hard to uphold some misplaced standard of “objectivity” and are so horned up about delineating fact from fiction that you lose any sense of moral clarity

Kessler’s moral clarity is perfectly fine. The question from his reader was about whether police are killing unarmed black kids at “frightening levels.” He concludes that they aren’t, and he’s right. Here’s a recent paper that examines the number of all unarmed suspects killed by police in 2014 (the year Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson) and 2015:

Another component of the national debate is that police are wantonly killing unarmed suspects, especially if they are black. We find no support for this claim in our data….Less than 1 percent of the victims of police killing in our data were unarmed. In other words, police killings of unarmed suspects—especially unarmed black men—garner massive media coverage (and not without reason), but they are far less common than the prevailing narrative suggests.

“Less than 1 percent.” How much less than 1 percent? The authors seem oddly reticent to provide a number, but it slips out a few paragraphs later:

Next, we turn to the important question of whether there are racial disparities in officer killings of unarmed or less threatening suspects. However, as noted earlier, the extremely low number of killings of unarmed suspects undercuts this claim from the start. Indeed, there are so few killings of unarmed suspects that those killings (n = 4) cannot be statistically scrutinized.

According to this paper, there were two (2) police killings of unarmed suspects each year. That’s all suspects—all races and all ages. Kessler, by contrast, uses an independent Washington Post database that contains more detail on age and race, and concludes that during the period 2015-2018 there was at most one shooting of an unarmed black child (it depends on whether you consider 12-year-old Tamir Rice “armed” because he had a toy gun). Among older children during the same years, police killed three unarmed black teens and six unarmed teens who were white or Hispanic. Altogether, Kessler counts roughly one unarmed child and two unarmed teens of all races who were killed by police each year.

(Things change when we get to adults, but the number depends a lot on how you defined “armed”: Do you count only guns as arms, or do you also count knives, bats, etc? Kessler doesn’t count knives and other weapons and therefore concludes that 90 unarmed black adults were killed over the course of four years. The other study counts anything potentially lethal as “armed,” and thus finds only a total of four killings of unarmed adults over the course of two years.)

There is nothing wrong with any of this. Are unarmed children being gunned down by police at harrowing levels? Obviously not, if this data is correct. Are unarmed suspects in general being gunned down at massive levels? It turns out that this depends on whether you count someone wielding a knife as “unarmed.”

I have my issues with fact checkers, but this one is perfectly fine. Nonetheless, Kessler obviously knows he’s going to get his ass handed to him merely for addressing this question with anything other than the usual bromides:

There’s little question the black community faces extraordinary levels of violence. But whether O’Rouke’s statement qualifies as Pinocchio or Geppetto-worthy depends on how you hear it. There have been virtually no shootings of unarmed children by police in the past five years. But hundreds of black children have been homicide victims.
Given the varying interpretations of O’Rouke’s statement, we won’t offer a rating. But readers are welcome to provide their own judgment below.

Go ahead, @ me.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate