Page 1 of 2
#1
I can see the heads exploding from here.

They did find bias in how the police treated black men and women, which is itself a large portion of the problem, but did not see it in police shootings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0


"A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias."
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#3
per stop
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
#4
I think Fryer is going to make a wonderful asset in the campaign to stop misinformation. He seems like a really smart guy, and not to mention he's very clear about what his research focuses on and where more research is needed.

So in other words, this study is going to be abused by both sides of the argument!

So before you comment, please read the article.
#5
In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.


Not surprised, domestic terrorism by white americans is still the most prominent and active form.
o()o

Quote by JamSessionFreak
yes every night of my entire life i go to bed crying because i wasnt born american
#6
I just hope whatever solutions are in the works involve treating black people better and not white people worse.

If they just start roughing up white way more until we achieve racial equality is that really any sort of victory for society???
(Here's where ali comes in with some shitty comment about it being a great thing, so I'll just go ahead now and tell you to shut the fuck up. Nobody wants to see your racist comments that youve convinced yourself aren't racist)
#7
I'm not sure what the difference is. Logically escalation to fatal force involves the encounter and stop itself, so how is it that they can claim these stops are racially biased yet their lethal outcome is not?

That it occurs frequently for white people is no surprise: I'm not sure where the perception that racially-charged police brutality means that there is no such thing as police brutality against white people. There was a very recent incident of this, if I'm not mistaken.

What bothers me is that this clearly outlines both racial and general issues in police interactions with civilians, but everyone's likely to ignore that in favor of the BLM vs Trump ideological battle going on. Like they logged enough instances of brutality even when these 'suspects' were compliant and "did not verbally threaten police officers, were not arrested and were not found with weapons or contraband." That is really bad, ignoring the racial bias present or any possibility of guilt. That is not something that should be subject to the lens of the aforementioned binary ideologies simply cuz it can be writhed to fit the argument.
Last edited by ali.guitarkid7 at Jul 12, 2016,
#8
Fryer's finding that, in NYC nearly every other category (use of hands, being pushed into a wall, having a weapon draw, having a gun pointed, etc.--in the article), Black people were much more likely to experience nonlethal use of force. The same was true when suspects were totally compliant. That suggests to me that there is still significant racial bias in policing, but that the emphasis on lethal shootings isn't representative of the issue.

The other thing that stood out to me was the huge discrepancy between police reporting and civilian reporting about the use of force. The authors of the article didn't exactly explain what Fryer was looking at there--whether perceptions from civilians about the use of force or filed reports or what--so I'm interested in what's going on there.
Quote by Skibolky
No one can really fuck with the power of empathy.
#9
I have no idea how Ali managed to write 3 whole paragraphs without actually saying anything
Quote by yellowfrizbee
What does a girl have to do to get it in the butt thats all I ever wanted from you. Why, Ace? Why? I clean my asshole every night hoping and wishing and it never happens.
Bitches be Crazy.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#10
Quote by Acϵ♠
I have no idea how Ali managed to write 3 whole paragraphs without actually saying anything

Then your reading comprehension is abysmal.
#11
dude your life comprehension is abysmal
Quote by yellowfrizbee
What does a girl have to do to get it in the butt thats all I ever wanted from you. Why, Ace? Why? I clean my asshole every night hoping and wishing and it never happens.
Bitches be Crazy.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#13
pretentious wank

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#14
orsonfacenospace
o()o

Quote by JamSessionFreak
yes every night of my entire life i go to bed crying because i wasnt born american
#15
Yah duh, 10 minutes of Google search and 5 minutes of very simple math you can see that narrative fall apart.

Of course, this doesn't prove anything about people's motives, but it does demonstrate that we are not seeing a pandemic of violence especially against black Americans perpetrated by police.


"Every day I wonder how many things I am dead wrong about."
Last edited by seanlang01 at Jul 12, 2016,
#17
Quote by K33nbl4d3
per stop
like you people do realise that that means that the conclusion drawn by the thread and article title is not a valid conclusion to draw right?

it literally says in the article "This work focused only on what happens once the police have stopped civilians, not on the risk of being stopped at all. Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police."

it's kinda funny cause that's exactly the kind of thing arby would point out if this study supposedly proved something scary and liberal

it's almost like he's got an ~agenda~ here
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
#18
"In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white."

...but isn't a big part of the problem that police are interpreting or reporting actions from black people as aggressive or dangerous a lot more readily than they are white people? Of course police will seem to be responding reasonably to threats their safety from black people if they're the ones interpreting or reporting it as violent/aggressive behaviour, that's sort of the problem.

Quote by Aeolian Harmony
The other thing that stood out to me was the huge discrepancy between police reporting and civilian reporting about the use of force. The authors of the article didn't exactly explain what Fryer was looking at there--whether perceptions from civilians about the use of force or filed reports or what--so I'm interested in what's going on there.

Yeah, this.

That fella recently that was shot in his car when going for his wallet I imagine was shot because the police interpreted that as an immediate threat. If he went back and wrote his report, that would show as reasonable behaviour.
Surely the whole argument is that a white person acting in the same way would not be interpreted as a threat.
#19
Quote by K33nbl4d3
like you people do realise that that means that the conclusion drawn by the thread and article title is not a valid conclusion to draw right?

it literally says in the article "This work focused only on what happens once the police have stopped civilians, not on the risk of being stopped at all. Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police."

it's kinda funny cause that's exactly the kind of thing arby would point out if this study supposedly proved something scary and liberal

it's almost like he's got an ~agenda~ here


I noted that it claimed that black men and women were treated differently in general but that no bias exists in lethal force situations. Do you dispute both of those, or only the one you don't like?

In any case, take it up with the author of the article etc., I'm comfortable with what I posted.

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to whine about it though.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Jul 12, 2016,
#20
Quote by Arby911
I noted that it claimed that black men and women were treated differently in general but that no bias exists in lethal force situations. Do you dispute both of those, or only the one you don't like?
i dispute that the study demonstrates either, but since the article suggests that there is a greater likelihood to be stopped if you're black, then "no difference" in the chance of getting shot if you're stopped means black people are more likely to get shot, whereas a greater likelihood of violence if you're stopped still means a greater likelihood of facing violence overall

Quote by Arby911
In any case, take it up with the author of the article etc., I'm comfortable with what I posted.
you can be as comfortable as you like, you're still making a point with these statistics that they don't really back up

Quote by Arby911
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to whine about it though.
well, it actually got pointed out more than once, but i felt it needed restating since people were still electing to ignore it
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
#22
Quote by K33nbl4d3
i dispute that the study demonstrates either, but since the article suggests that there is a greater likelihood to be stopped if you're black, then "no difference" in the chance of getting shot if you're stopped means black people are more likely to get shot, whereas a greater likelihood of violence if you're stopped still means a greater likelihood of facing violence overall

you can be as comfortable as you like, you're still making a point with these statistics that they don't really back up

well, it actually got pointed out more than once, but i felt it needed restating since people were still electing to ignore it


I'm not making the point at all, I don't need to, the author of the study is, perhaps your argument is with him?

It doesn't appear that you actually read either the linked article or the study, perhaps you should rectify that before you present your uninformed biases?

And I mentioned whining because that was all you, the others simply presented potential objections to the claim, some of which also lead me to believe they've not fully read the information available.

Here, directly from the presented paper, are a few sections you aren't likely to like. The first is where the paraphrase in the linked article came from: "With these caveats in mind, this paper takes first steps into the treacherous terrain of understanding the nature and extent of racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, there are racial differences - sometimes quite large - in police use of force, even after accounting for a large set of controls designed to account for important contextual and behavioral factors at the time of the police-civilian interaction. Interestingly, as use of force increases from putting hands on a civilian to striking them with a baton, the overall probability of such an incident occurring decreases dramatically but the racial difference remains roughly constant. Even when officers report civilians have been compliant and no arrest was made, blacks are 21.3 (0.04) percent
more likely to endure some form of force. Yet, on the most extreme use of force - officer-involved shootings - we are unable to detect any racial differences in either the raw data or when accounting for controls."


Or how about this one? "It is plausible that racial differences in lower level uses of force are simply a distraction and movements such as Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces."
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Jul 12, 2016,
#24
Quote by Arby911
I'm not making the point at all, I don't need to, the author of the study is, perhaps your argument is with him?
except the study doesn't say that - i added to my original post just pointing out the all-important "per stop" because there were "checkmate, liberals"-type interpretations happening, as usual. you then offered the factually untrue statement that "it claimed that... no bias exists in lethal force situations". the omitted section was true, the paper did claim that "On non-lethal uses of force, there are racial differences", but only that it could not find a racial bias in shootings which, according to the article (yes, let's be clear that i only read the article and the conclusion of the actual study, for obvious reasons), would require more data to draw firm conclusions

Quote by Arby911
It doesn't appear that you actually read either the linked article or the study, perhaps you should rectify that before you present your uninformed biases?
i mean it clearly doesn't appear that way at all, but if you want to do this thing then feel free

Quote by Arby911
And I mentioned whining because that was all you, the others simply presented potential objections to the claim, some of which also lead me to believe they've not fully read the information available.
again, that interpretation's all on you but okay

EDIT: i don't take issue with the stuff you quoted in your edit, because it's the stuff that's actually in the study
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
Last edited by K33nbl4d3 at Jul 12, 2016,
#25
Quote by K33nbl4d3
except the study doesn't say that - i added to my original post just pointing out the all-important "per stop" because there were "checkmate, liberals"-type interpretations happening, as usual. you then offered the factually untrue statement that "it claimed that... no bias exists in lethal force situations".


EDIT: i don't take issue with the stuff you quoted in your edit, because it's the stuff that's actually in the study


So your real issue is that I said it finds no bias in both the body and the title, even though the article linked said precisely that and the study itself says "Yet, on the most extreme use of force - officer-involved shootings - we are unable to detect any racial differences in either the raw data or when accounting for controls."?

Yes, it says "unable to detect", but your disagreement is pedantic in the extreme if that's what you're hanging your hat on.

Out of curiosity, are you an Atheist? (You may have said at one time somewhere but if so I can't recall.)

Also, and I almost overlooked this, you also dispute that the study shows disparate treatment? ("i dispute that the study demonstrates either,") That's amazing...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Jul 12, 2016,
#26
Quote by Arby911
So your real issue is that I said it claimed no bias exists, even though the article linked said precisely that and the study itself says "Yet, on the most extreme use of force - officer-involved shootings - we are unable to detect any racial differences in either the raw data or when accounting for controls."?

Yes, it says "unable to detect", but your disagreement is pedantic in the extreme if that's what you're hanging your hat on.
not really since the article explicitly says "This estimate was not precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data."

Quote by Arby911
Out of curiosity, are you an Atheist? (You may have said at one time somewhere but if so I can't recall.)
nope, i'm agnostic but if we're trying to undermine each other on a personal level now can i start making old person jokes instead of points?

Quote by Arby911
Also, and I almost overlooked this, you also dispute that the study shows disparate treatment? ("i dispute that the study demonstrates either,") That's amazing...
you're right, that was a fuckup on my part and i would have preferred if you had overlooked it
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
#27
Quote by K33nbl4d3
not really since the article explicitly says "This estimate was not precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data."

nope, i'm agnostic but if we're trying to undermine each other on a personal level now can i start making old person jokes instead of points?

you're right, that was a fuckup on my part and i would have preferred if you had overlooked it


At this time I think that anyone that didn't want more data would be an utter half-wit, but aren't you doing there what some Global Warming opponents do and simply saying that the conclusions reached thus far are invalid due to a limited data set? (This may be true in either case, but doesn't it make more sense to discuss what we do have than bemoan what we don't?)

It wasn't to undermine you personally but even if it were your initial response about my "agenda" already opened the ball on that one, no?

How about the secondary conclusion I posted above, thoughts?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#28
You should make old person jokes with Arby because of its own joy rather than as a means to undermine him on a personal level.
Quote by Skibolky
No one can really fuck with the power of empathy.
#29
Quote by Aeolian Harmony
You should make old person jokes with Arby because of its own joy rather than as a means to undermine him on a personal level.


And because it doesn't bother me. It's sort of like making socialist jokes about Sanders, it doesn't take much mental effort and it's got some truth to it...

Slapsy makes the best ones though, the rest of you need to step up.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#30
Quote by Arby911
At this time I think that anyone that didn't want more data would be an utter half-wit, but aren't you doing there what some Global Warming opponents do and simply saying that the conclusions reached thus far are invalid due to a limited data set? (This may be true in either case, but doesn't it make more sense to discuss what we do have than bemoan what we don't?)
i do not believe i am doing that since to the best of my knowledge there's broad scientific consensus on global warming whereas this is one study which describes itself as taking "first steps" into this issue

Quote by Arby911
It wasn't to undermine you personally but even if it were your initial response about my "agenda" already opened the ball on that one, no?
yeah sure i'll take that

so why were you wondering if i was an atheist?

Quote by Arby911
How about the secondary conclusion I posted above, thoughts?

this one?
"It is plausible that racial differences in lower level uses of force are simply a distraction and movements such as Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces."
sure there are problems to be solved in black communities but i'm not sure that falls to a movement protesting racially motivated police brutality and the media's vilification of its victims
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
#31
Quote by K33nbl4d3

so why were you wondering if i was an atheist?


I wanted to use an analogy referencing the claim some Atheists make that because no evidence has been found that G_D does not exist. (And of course staunch believers fall into the other side of the same trap, that of claiming certainty without proof.)

At no point was I considering that I might use Atheism to discredit you (or anyone else for that matter), simply trying to couch it in terms that made sense to the receiver.

Since you're an Agnostic, and thus more pragmatic than either of those houses, it wouldn't have made much sense.

What he seems to be saying there is that it's at least possible that the efforts would be better spent cleaning up internally rather than expending the spotlight and resources on external problems? (I note this is similar to what Bill Cosby has said in the past, and although his morals are questionable that doesn't mean he was wrong on this, an unrelated issue.)

I neither agree nor disagree...yet. It seems to me there's truth there but perhaps it's a bit too glib to dismiss external forces, which it can be reasonably argued have created the internals, to that degree.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#32
Quote by K33nbl4d3
like you people do realise that that means that the conclusion drawn by the thread and article title is not a valid conclusion to draw right?

it literally says in the article "This work focused only on what happens once the police have stopped civilians, not on the risk of being stopped at all. Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police."

it's kinda funny cause that's exactly the kind of thing arby would point out if this study supposedly proved something scary and liberal

it's almost like he's got an ~agenda~ here
Black people are more likely to be stopped but also account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime. Again, you're making the error that a simple ratio is enough to indicate some kind of bias, and not taking into account other causes for the disparity.


"Every day I wonder how many things I am dead wrong about."
#33
Quote by Arby911
I wanted to use an analogy referencing the claim some Atheists make that because no evidence has been found that G_D does not exist. (And of course staunch believers fall into the other side of the same trap, that of claiming certainty without proof.)

At no point was I considering that I might use Atheism to discredit you (or anyone else for that matter), simply trying to couch it in terms that made sense to the receiver.

Since you're an Agnostic, and thus more pragmatic than either of those houses, it wouldn't have made much sense.

What he seems to be saying there is that it's at least possible that the efforts would be better spent cleaning up internally rather than expending the spotlight and resources on external problems? (I note this is similar to what Bill Cosby has said in the past, and although his morals are questionable that doesn't mean he was wrong on this, an unrelated issue.)

I neither agree nor disagree...yet. It seems to me there's truth there but perhaps it's a bit too glib to dismiss external forces, which it can be reasonably argued have created the internals, to that degree.
well yeah to claim that either needs to be addressed preferentially is the classic "who cares when there are starving children in africa" misdirection - a problem doesn't cease to matter because there are other, larger ones - and in the context of racial tensions in america i think it often gets used as a crude appeasement that doesn't really benefit anyone

a lot of the internal issues in black communities in the united states can be pretty directly linked to poverty, both current and in the past, which clearly has a lot of external factors behind it even if there are internal ones too

i think the popularity of black lives matter focusing on external factors is largely because there's a general perception of everything bad that happens to black americans being their own fault since mlk went and ended racism

i would say that it falls to black people to solve their own problems to the extent that there really isn't much sign of anyone else doing it, but that it's entirely unreasonable to suggest that that makes discrimination in law enforcement or employment or education or housing their own fault. obviously other stuff like gang violence you can't just say someone's completely not responsible on an individual level for involvement in that, but equally it would be naive to disregard external factors

Quote by seanlang01
Black people are more likely to be stopped but also account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime. Again, you're making the error that a simple ratio is enough to indicate some kind of bias, and not taking into account other causes for the disparity.
not really, just those things don't automatically cancel each other out. while that disparity is unaccounted for, it is not reasonable to claim that this proves black people are treated fairly when it comes to being shot by police officers
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
#34
Quote by Aeolian Harmony
Fryer's finding that, in NYC nearly every other category (use of hands, being pushed into a wall, having a weapon draw, having a gun pointed, etc.--in the article), Black people were much more likely to experience nonlethal use of force. The same was true when suspects were totally compliant. That suggests to me that there is still significant racial bias in policing, but that the emphasis on lethal shootings isn't representative of the issue.


I disagree with your interpretation that it’s “much more likely” or that the difference is significant.

So if we analyze and go through the study: police officers are more likely to use hands with blacks than they are whites. 17% more likely. So, 2,165 times out of every 10,000 stops (in NYC) police officers are more likely to use their hands and touch that individual if they are black than they are with whites, where they do it every 1,845 times. Not a very significant difference, but it is a difference nonetheless. A 17% difference.

They are more likely to push a black into wall 623 times vs 529 for a white suspect. They’re more likely to use a handcuff on a black person 310 times than they are with whites 266 times (only a 16% difference). They’re more likely to draw their weapon on a black person 155 times vs 129 for a white person (a 19% difference). They’re more likely to push a black suspect to the ground 136 times vs 114 times for a white person (that’s an 18 percent difference). They’re more likely to point a weapon at a black suspect 54 times vs 43 times when they would point it at a white person (a 24% difference). But you notice that as the percent difference gets greater the raw numbers of times these incidents happen is decreasing significantly. Use of hands 2,100 times, pushing into wall 623 times, drawing weapon 155 times, push to ground 136 times.. but pointing a weapon only 54 times? And to use pepper spray or a baton 5 times against blacks, 4 times against whites. A 25 % difference. I trust you see that as the numbers decrease and get closer together, the percentage increases.

But the most important part of the study is this: in shootings in these 10 cities involving cops, cops were more likely to fire their weapons without first having been attacked when they suspect it was a white person. Shall I repeat that? As the author of this study says, both of these results undercut the idea that the police use lethal force with any racial bias. And in attempt to go further and get more data, they chose Houston to study and they found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or that there was no difference between blacks or whites being shot.

So what’s the lesson? There’s not a slaughter going on. Do individual horrific events, do individual incidents of wrong doing by cops deserve to make the news? Absolutely. And I don’t think there’s a cop out there that would disagree with that statement (unless they are a dirty cop). Any time a cop does something wrong they should be held accountable. . But what’s happened to us as a society with the advent of smart phones, the ability to record any event any time anywhere and then not to just record it but then to post it to numerous social media outlets.. think about how fast that spreads. For example, someone who posts something that instantly goes viral like two cops shooting a guy at point blank range--of course now millions of people are gonna see that. And the sad part and the incorrect part and the part that we have to be cognizant of is that is only one snippet and doesn’t tell us the facts.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
Last edited by Carnivean at Jul 12, 2016,
#35
Quote by K33nbl4d3
well yeah to claim that either needs to be addressed preferentially is the classic "who cares when there are starving children in africa" misdirection - a problem doesn't cease to matter because there are other, larger ones - and in the context of racial tensions in america i think it often gets used as a crude appeasement that doesn't really benefit anyone


Well yes and no.

While there may be sufficient resources to address both simultaneously, it's not true that we shouldn't address problems preferentially.

In fact that's the best way to do it, you just have to accurately determine how to prioritize. What will do the most good with the available resources and over what time period?

It's the old "When you're up to your ass in alligators you need to quit worrying about how to drain the swamp!" (Seen elsewhere as "Win the fight first!", “Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least.”, “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” or the always simple "First things First".)
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#36
Quote by Arby911
Well yes and no.

While there may be sufficient resources to address both simultaneously, it's not true that we shouldn't address problems preferentially.

In fact that's the best way to do it, you just have to accurately determine how to prioritize. What will do the most good with the available resources and over what time period?

It's the old "When you're up to your ass in alligators you need to quit worrying about how to drain the swamp!" (Seen elsewhere as "Win the fight first!", “Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least.”, “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” or the always simple "First things First".)
yeah, poor word choice

probably "at the expense of the other" would have been better than "preferentially"
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
#37
Quote by Arby911
I can see the heads exploding from here.


I think it'll be more like "I disagree with the conclusions, therefore there is a flaw in the analysis"
Check out my band Disturbed
#38
Quote by StewieSwan
I think it'll be more like "I disagree with the conclusions, therefore there is a flaw in the analysis"


If you came up with that prior to reading the thread then well done!!
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#39
Quote by K33nbl4d3
not really, just those things don't automatically cancel each other out. while that disparity is unaccounted for, it is not reasonable to claim that this proves black people are treated fairly when it comes to being shot by police officers
Correct, which is why I did not claim it proves their is no bias, but rather it disproves the narrative of black people being slaughtered by police at an extraordinary rate. The take-away should be that there is not strong evidence to defend the notion that "the police" are especially racist or target black people.


"Every day I wonder how many things I am dead wrong about."
#40
Quote by Carnivean
I disagree with your interpretation that it’s “much more likely” or that the difference is significant.

So if we analyze and go through the study: police officers are more likely to use hands with blacks than they are whites. 17% more likely. So, 2,165 times out of every 10,000 stops (in NYC) police officers are more likely to use their hands and touch that individual if they are black than they are with whites, where they do it every 1,845 times. Not a very significant difference, but it is a difference nonetheless. A 17% difference.

They are more likely to push a black into wall 623 times vs 529 for a white suspect. They’re more likely to use a handcuff on a black person 310 times than they are with whites 266 times (only a 16% difference). They’re more likely to draw their weapon on a black person 155 times vs 129 for a white person (a 19% difference). They’re more likely to push a black suspect to the ground 136 times vs 114 times for a white person (that’s an 18 percent difference). They’re more likely to point a weapon at a black suspect 54 times vs 43 times when they would point it at a white person (a 24% difference). But you notice that as the percent difference gets greater the raw numbers of times these incidents happen is decreasing significantly. Use of hands 2,100 times, pushing into wall 623 times, drawing weapon 155 times, push to ground 136 times.. but pointing a weapon only 54 times? And to use pepper spray or a baton 5 times against blacks, 4 times against whites. A 25 % difference. I trust you see that as the numbers decrease and get closer together, the percentage increases.

But the most important part of the study is this: in shootings in these 10 cities involving cops, cops were more likely to fire their weapons without first having been attacked when they suspect it was a white person. Shall I repeat that? As the author of this study says, both of these results undercut the idea that the police use lethal force with any racial bias. And in attempt to go further and get more data, they chose Houston to study and they found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or that there was no difference between blacks or whites being shot.

So what’s the lesson? There’s not a slaughter going on. Do individual horrific events, do individual incidents of wrong doing by cops deserve to make the news? Absolutely. And I don’t think there’s a cop out there that would disagree with that statement (unless they are a dirty cop). Any time a cop does something wrong they should be held accountable. . But what’s happened to us as a society with the advent of smart phones, the ability to record any event any time anywhere and then not to just record it but then to post it to numerous social media outlets.. think about how fast that spreads. For example, someone who posts something that instantly goes viral like two cops shooting a guy at point blank range--of course now millions of people are gonna see that. And the sad part and the incorrect part and the part that we have to be cognizant of is that is only one snippet and doesn’t tell us the facts.

Adjust for population dummy


"This racism is not enough for me"
Page 1 of 2