If you understand statistics, the study actually tells us nothing WHY blacks are over-represented.
Four possibilities:
They commit less or the same crimes relative to their population, than the rest of the population, and are therefore unfairly targeted.
They commit more crimes than the rest of the population, but are still unfairly targeted, because they are even so still over-targeted.
They commit more crimes than the rest of the population, and are fairly targeted on that basis.
They commit more crimes than the rest of the population, and are under-targeted, because even though they are charged more than the rest of the population, they STILL aren't charged as much as they should be.
The study tells us nothing about which of the four cases is the truth.
The underlying assumption is that all races are equally likely to commit crimes. Of course in that case, any race that is under-charged with crimes deserves MORE charges. So if relatively peaceful Japanese Canadians are rarely charged etc, then they are somehow 'getting away with it'. That's the logic of 'every race is equal in all aspects" theory.
You cannot say that some are over-charged without saying that some are under-charged.
.
.
.
So apparently
YOU don't understand statistics (particularly as you think there are only 4 possibilities as listed) .
The factual reality is that blacks are not
'targeted' (by law enforcement) at all.
For it is -the poor- who "... commit more crimes than the rest of the population, and are fairly targeted on that basis"... and the racial overlap among the subset of humanity who are poor, is not something
created by police in any exceptional way.
But what 2020 society and the media which pretends to represent it, fail to do, is acknowledge that while the rest of us are sitting in boardrooms, and talking to people in H.R. ... and having corporate lunches...
police are conditioned on an hourly basis to believe that POC = poor = more likely to commit crime.
And
that alone is the crux of the problem.
The solution remains to dissociate race from any sort of indication of financial well-being.
We all know we can do this...
For if Grant Fuhr is the person milling around back in your sports equipment store,
and you know it, you're not watching all of the closed circuit cameras intently. You're glad he's there, and you wish you could figure out who to
tell, in your own personal life (that would score you 'points' somehow)... but not once do you
expect Grant Fuhr to steal from you.
Grant Fuhr may even be looking around oddly, up and down each aisle... but he's looking around to see if he's likely to be recognized,
not to see if store security is looking.
As for the last part: You don't understand what you're talking about.
It is indisputable that "all races are equally likely to commit crimes".
BUT 'race' is independently irrelevant data, and
should be treated as such.
IF, say, 1 in every 6 Jamaican Canadians is poor... and 1 in every 27 Japanese Canadians is poor.
And if we accept that the poor commit far more crimes per capita than other subsets of society... then it is still true that crime data studied for race should find 4.5X the rate of Jamaican Canadians committing crimes as do Japanese Canadians...
over a long study with a statistically-significant sample size (and not just a medium-sized list of all who have ever been gunned-down by the Bacon brothers)
Lastly, of course none of that supports any hint that Japanese Canadians are in any way better than Jamaican Canadians. (which is the inferred perception at the root of the whole problem)