or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 307

post #4591 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

I guess you didn't read what I wrote about that earlier in the Dallas shooting thread (this discussion has now spanned at least 3 threads so I don't blame you) but:

"Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police." So if we take x = rate of being stopped , and y = rate of shooting, and if y_white = y_black, but x_white < x_black , then x*y for blacks is higher than for whites. That means, while the risk of being shot might be the same, there will simply be a higher rate of blacks (by population) that get stopped and shot.

On top of that, "on non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police" (NYT), or as the author put it, "in the raw data, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to have an interaction with police which involves any use of force [pushed to wall, weapon drawn, pushed to ground ,gun pointed, pepper sprayed, grabbed, handcuffed, kicked, stun gunned or pepper sprayed]"

Important points brought up as limitations in the study. Sure, the rate of [non]fatal shooting might be the same, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem otherwise.

That's what is great about this study. One side can ignore that blacks get roughed up more while the other side can pretend they've out-thought the researcher as to why police shooting blacks is still racially biased. There is absolutely something for everyone to be disingenuous about in this so I fucking love it.

Also, is that bolded correct? Doesn't the data indicate in some cities whites are actually shot at more?
post #4592 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

I guess you didn't read what I wrote about that earlier in the Dallas shooting thread (this discussion has now spanned at least 3 threads so I don't blame you) but:

"Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police." Once stopped, things are even. But what about the rate of being stopped? So if we take x = rate of being stopped , and y = rate of shooting, and if y_white = y_black, but x_white < x_black , then x*y for blacks is higher than for whites. That means, while the risk of being shot might be the same, there will simply be a higher rate of blacks (by population) that get stopped and shot.

On top of that, "on non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police" (NYT), or as the author put it, "in the raw data, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to have an interaction with police which involves any use of force [pushed to wall, weapon drawn, pushed to ground ,gun pointed, pepper sprayed, grabbed, handcuffed, kicked, stun gunned or pepper sprayed]"

Important points brought up as limitations in the study. Sure, the rate of [non]fatal shooting might be the same, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem otherwise.

Discussing the limitations on the study and the complexities of drawing conclusions from it reminds me of one of my all-time favorite bad journalism moments.

A number of years ago, news outlets were more or less parroting without analysis the LAPD's proud announcement that fatal shootings (fatal shootings generally, not fatal shootings by police) had dropped by X amount from the previous year. Buried somewhere near the end of the report/story was the unhighlighted fact that total shootings had gone up by more than X. So basically the LAPD was taking credit for criminals' aim getting worse or ER doctors getting better or something.
post #4593 of 6075
Okay, to remove "journalism" from the conversation, directly from the study:
Quote:
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.

We argue that these facts are most consistent with a model of taste-based discrimination in
which police officers face discretely higher costs for officer-involved shootings relative to non-lethal
uses of force. This model is consistent with racial differences in the average returns to compliant
behaviors, the results of our tests of discrimination based on Knowles, Persico, and Todd (2001) and
Anwar and Fang (2006), and the fact that the odds-ratio is large and significant across all intensities
of force – even after accounting for a rich set of controls. In the end, however, without randomly
assigning race, we have no definitive proof of discrimination. Our results are also consistent with
mismeasured contextual factors.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf


I look forward to the CE minds that can out think this highly regarded Harvard economist that also happens to be an African American.
post #4594 of 6075


Twenty whole percent -- how egregious! I wonder if there's some reason cops in NYC might be slightly more wary of blacks.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/blacks-70-shooting-suspects-2013-nypd-article-1.1522917
post #4595 of 6075
What I get from that paragraph I quoted (and skimming the entire study) is that he concludes racial bias is very strong in police departments, however, by and large police are rational actors and utility maximizers so they act out on their biases in low grade ways, but as the level of violence increases, so does the likely cost to the officer. The likely or perceived cost for shooting is so high it overrules bias. So the major points of the narrative are retained but a crucial part of it, police shootings, is not.
post #4596 of 6075
^ exactly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Also, is that bolded correct? Doesn't the data indicate in some cities whites are actually shot at more?

I think you answered this question when you read the article.

I haven't read the article in its entirety but two other points worth noting, namely that it is not published and that the data regarding non-lethal use of force is self-reported by police officers
- "NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications"
- "The key limitation of the data is they only capture the police side of the story. There have been several high-profile cases of police storytelling that is not congruent with video evidence of the interaction."
post #4597 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

^ exactly

And you were doubting me. Just don't tell @Loathing I can actually think.
post #4598 of 6075
Or maybe it's just not accounted for by what's reported because there's just less interest in lower use of force cases (especially when it's defined down to almost nothing as it is here), and the cops just don't bother to document the various factors that precipitated it.
post #4599 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Or maybe it's just not accounted for by what's reported because there's just less interest in lower use of force cases (especially when it's defined down to almost nothing as it is here), and the cops just don't bother to document the various factors that precipitated it.

We can indeed attempt to discredit any data we disagree with.
post #4600 of 6075

I imagine this is what people will attempt to discredit the study with:

 

Quote:
Our results have several important caveats. First, all but one dataset was provided by a select group of police departments. It is possible that these departments only supplied the data because they are either enlightened or were not concerned about what the analysis would reveal. In essence, this is equivalent to analyzing labor market discrimination on a set of firms willing to supply a researcher with their Human Resources data! There may be important selection in who was willing to share their data. The Police-Public contact survey partially sidesteps this issue by including a nationally representative sample of civilians, but it does not contain data on officer-involved shootings.
post #4601 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordion View Post

I imagine this is what people will discredit the study with:

My comment to that would be that the data, other than shootings, is far from showing those departments in a positive light. Remove officer involved shooting from the equation and one is left with nothing but a highly racially biased picture of the departments in the study.
post #4602 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

but as the level of violence increases, so does the likely cost to the officer. The likely or perceived cost for shooting is so high it overrules bias. .

This is a very good point. It makes me wonder if Police Officers like Jeronimo Yonder that shot Castile are really insane, racist killers. He was intelligent and knew what was going on in America regarding policing. Was he willing to possibly throw his life and career away, just so he could shoot Castile? Many believe this. Gov. Dayton implied that Yonder is a racist by saying he didn't think the incident would have happened if Castile were white.

It seems to me that the opposite is true. Any sane cop will try not to shoot black men, because they are very aware of the possible costs. The killers of LaQuan MacDonald and Walter Scott seem to have disregarded the costs to themselves. But cops that have killed like Darren Wilson, Jeronimo Yonder and Peter Liang seem much, much more typical.

And to you Pio, yes I absolutely concur that in every one of the "cases" there is a dead black man at the end. It sort of mirrors the question, do you really believe that there is the slightest indication of "A Police War on Black Males", whereby police willingly and knowingly are killing Black men because they want to do so?

This stuff seemed to start with Trayvon and George Z ( not a cop obviously ), and then exploded with Mike Brown and Darren Wilson. And since then many cops have been accused of killing Black men even though the perceived cost for shooting a Black man is very high ( ask Darren Wilson and the Freddie Gray cops about this ). When a cop has killed a black man, was the desire to kill that black man greater than his desire for avoiding costs to himself?
post #4603 of 6075
Rnoldh, as always, your analysis and commentary is both distressing and puzzling.

cheers.gif
post #4604 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

I haven't read the article in its entirety but two other points worth noting, namely that it is not published and that the data regarding non-lethal use of force is self-reported by police officers

- "The key limitation of the data is they only capture the police side of the story. There have been several high-profile cases of police storytelling that is not congruent with video evidence of the interaction."

this

post #4605 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Rnoldh, as always, your analysis and commentary is both distressing and puzzling.

cheers.gif

Simply put, I believe the "Narrative" is BS and destructive. If you believe any or much of it, that's fine.



C'est la vie
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?