[kelseyfrog]

It's important to note that common sense itself is a bias. It's a bias towards what we already think. Don't mistake that as trying to say that for "we should avoid priors" - that's not possible. What would it take for you to soften (not move) your priors on the common sense that "police aren't co-creators in crime through the act of observation"?

[chongli]

police aren't co-creators in crime

Police aren’t co-creators of crime, they’re co-creators of crime statistics. Crimes that go unreported, with no arrest made, are invisible to crime statistics. When the police arrest someone and charge them with a crime, it counts as both an arrest and a reported crime.

So even if crime were uniformly distributed across the city, if police spent the majority of their time in one neighbourhood they’d make more arrests there and so it follows that the statistics would show higher crime in that neighbourhood.

[danaris]

Police are also demonstrably co-creators of crime.

We know very well that police injure and kill people—disproportionately people of color—at a much higher rate than the general population.

We also know that they (technically legally, but c'mon, it's theft) steal large amounts of money and other property from people through civil asset forfeiture.

[kelseyfrog]

Instead of reacting, why don't you get curious instead?

I stand by my claim. Crimes are social facts. They exist within a reality supported by whichever laws those with the monopoly of violence believe in. Crimes exist within the symbol register of thought. I'll ask you a question in return, why did you choose your ontology of crime among all those that could possibly exist?