White chance to be injured was ~43%, so if anything:
P(white ∩ injured) = P(white)P(injured) = (.31)(.43) =.1333
and that's correct - about 13% of the total number of suspects were white and injured.
P(white ∩ injured) is not .34, and never have I (nor the study) claimed so. .34 is P(white) when you take all injured cases as 1.
According to you, P(white ∩ injured) + P(white ∩ uninjured) should = 1. It doesn't, it equals 0.31 - the % of white suspects among the total.
Look at the next row, it should be more clear when the % is over 50: 88% of all suspects were male. Among the injured suspects, 92% were male. Among uninjured suspects, 85% were male. Male suspects were more likely to be injured than non-male suspects. Now replace "male" with "white".
Read the previous 2 pages in the study (Summary of measures) for a description of the table, you're obviously misinterpreting something. The number of white people (7,555) and overall % of injuries (39%) are mentioned there, I'm not making shit up.