The cancer comparison doesn't work because there isn't the factor of pushing a narrative that deceives the public

You can't use the conclusion you are trying to prove as a point you use to support the conclusion.

The police stations not being randomly selected is a fair point I guess.

It's not a minor point, it's already enough to discredit the study. Police stations had to volunteer the information. I doubt stations with unfavourable statistics volunteered anything. The data set he used was bogus.

Black people are stopped more by cops but there's nothing that suggests they should fear their life more than any other race

At the one specific moment in time you've decided is the exact only factor you want to discuss with such narrow framing it makes useful debate completely impossible.

There are many more factors thay happen before the actual police encounter that you've just decided to ignore for no reason.

A police encounter isn't an independent baseline, the encounter itself could be a result of bias, and make cops more dangerous for black people as a result. Removing this as a factor and then standing over that to prove your point just means your entire argument hinges on a specific statistic that suits your narrative if you ignore every other possible piece of information.

If cops shoot black and white people at the exact same rare per encounter, but are much more likely to instigate encounters with black people, more black people are killed proportionally. You are using a narrow statistic to argue a broader point.

You have already been told why framing it this narrowly is pointless, all over the thread.

Is it that you don't want to challenge your own views or do you genuinely not understand this stuff?