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 311

post #4651 of 6080
Noble tape is terrible. Walter Scott tape was worse. And the LaQuan tape was horrendous.

If there was an anti-police brutality campaign that highlighted cases like that, I would support it wholeheartedly.

But one that started with Trayvon and has Michael Brown as a symbol is divisive. The BLM thing is more a political and social thing now, than it is an anti police-brutality thing, and they care little for truth or facts.

If there was an anti police brutality movement based on genuine cases I think it would draw broad support.

The fly in the ointment is "who gets to decide which cases are genuine"? I don't have an answer to that. But a start would be to throw out the extremes.

Anybody that thinks the police were right in the Noble, Scott, or MacDonald cases is very extreme and very partisan.

Likewise, anyone that thinks the police were wrong in the Michael Brown case is extreme and very partisan.

I'm too old, but why doesn't someone start a CAB ( Citizens Against Brutality ) and use Walter Scott and Dylan Noble as the poster boys and inspiration. It might enjoy some support. Then again it might not.
post #4652 of 6080
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

It might enjoy some support. Then again it might not.
We could use you over in the stocks and investing thread. smile.gif
post #4653 of 6080
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

We could use you over in the stocks and investing thread. smile.gif

Yeah, I have many sources with fabulous inside tips. The stocks might shoot up, and then again they might not smile.gif
post #4654 of 6080
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Yeah, I have many sources with fabulous inside tips. The stocks might shoot up, and then again they might not smile.gif

Hands up, don't shoot? Or do. It depends.
post #4655 of 6080
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Hands up, don't shoot? Or do. It depends.

Black lives matter. Most of the time.

But it depends
Edited by rnoldh - 7/14/16 at 7:14pm
post #4656 of 6080
How about cops? Defund and fire 60% of them.
post #4657 of 6080
I saw the Nobel video. If I was one of those cops I'd think at several points before shots were fired that Nobel would try to kill me. I think he wanted to die. Can't imagine what would be going through his mind if he wanted to live and refused to show his hands.
post #4658 of 6080

Tried to go through the needlessly complicated study that WaPo cited and the only thing that struck me was the data they used, from the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) from 2011-2014, contained over 50% victims that were of unidentified race. So I don't know why they used it at all.

 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854#sec005

 

Response against the Fryer study:

 

http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2016/07/police-use-of-force-notes-on-study.html

 

Basically, arrestee pool is different from shooting victim pool, so can't say that just cuz blacks get arrested more that they should get shot at more.

 

Whoever made the decision to muddle the data as much as possible did a good job cuz no one can come to a consensus, not that there would be one anyway.


Edited by accordion - 7/14/16 at 6:45pm
post #4659 of 6080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

How about cops? Defund and fire 60% of them.

Didn't one of the big cities in Texas fire like 70% of their police force after an internal investigation or something?
post #4660 of 6080
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

Didn't one of the big cities in Texas fire like 70% of their police force after an internal investigation or something?

So just one family then?
post #4661 of 6080

So, it seems that the NYT article and perhaps Fryer himself exaggerated the meaning of his results. But, none of the counterarguments to the study are at all convincing, most of them are kinda dumb. Very simply, the controls used in every analysis in the study are exactly the same, including the ones that showed extreme racial bias in police contact to crimes committed ratios. Although it's true that the arrest dataset (of incidents likely to justify lethal force) is unrelated to the shooting dataset, e.g. dead people don't get arrested, there needs to be some pretty fucking good non-conspiracy theory argument to show why that matters across races. Rest of the hole-poking are just wild conjecture.

 

Fryer should not have mentioned the videos of police shootings since the study is very focused and based on limited and unreliable data (police reports).

 

Something more interesting than the extrinsic margin police shooting bias result:

Quote:
Including all controls available, officers report that they are 47.4% less likely to discharge their firearms before being attacked if the suspect is black. The Hispanic coefficient is strikingly similar (43.6% less likely).

 

Surprised people aren't talking about this instead. Can say all kinds of shit with it. The Houston police department has some weird fucking protocol that places their own officers in unnecessary danger. Police reports involving shooting of blacks are systemically doctored, etc.

post #4662 of 6080
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordion View Post

Response against the Fryer study:

http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2016/07/police-use-of-force-notes-on-study.html

Basically, arrestee pool is different from shooting victim pool, so can't say that just cuz blacks get arrested more that they should get shot at more.

I'm not sure I follow. the pools have to necessarily be different because not everyone arrested is shot. Unless you're saying the shootings are not even a subset of the arrest pool, but that doesn't reduce the rate of police interaction which is a necessity for shooting, it just makes it a probabilistic inference
post #4663 of 6080

The latter,

 

 
Quote:
The Europile thread contains a quick, precise, and insightful summary of the empirical exercise conducted by Fryer to look for racial bias in police shootings. There are two distinct pools of observations: an arrest pool and a shooting pool. The arrest pool is composed of "a random sample of police-civilian interactions from the Houston police department from arrests codes in which lethal force is more likely to be justified: attempted capital murder of a public safety officer, aggravated assault on a public safety officer, resisting arrest, evading arrest, and interfering in arrest." The shooting pool is a sample of interactions that resulted in the discharge of a firearm by an officer, also in Houston. 
 
Importantly, the latter pool is not a subset of the former, or even a subset of the set of arrests from which the former pool is drawn. Put another way, had the interactions in the shooting pool been resolved without incident, many of them would never have made it into the arrest pool. Think of the Castile traffic stop: had this resulted in a traffic violation or a warning or nothing at all, it would not have been recorded in arrest data of this kind.

 

The argument against the datasets is:

 

1.) The arrest dataset (Set A) is made up of "a random draw of all arrests for the following offenses, from 2000 - 2015: aggravated assault on a peace officer, attempted capital murder of a peace officer, resisting arrest, evading arrest, and interfering in an arrest." Or in other words, incidents that involve justified use of extreme force. But all of those offenses are according to the police, where they have an incentive to inflate charges.

 

2.) The shooting dataset (Set B) involves any incident when the officer used a taser/gun. The police have an incentive to underreport those incidents against black/hispanics.

 

3.) The police shooting non-bias result merely shows that blacks are over-represented in set A and under-represented in set B. (This is true and the more accurate description of the result)

 

Hence the shooting bias result does not reflect anything.

 

Set A/supersets of A are where they find the racially biased results for use of non-lethal force, stop/frisk, etc.

 

This argument is saying/implying that there's a systemic coverup of black shootings, in that using a weapon doesn't show up on police reports at all, or made to look like an accident (controlled for). Or basically, start by assuming the police are racist and interpret the results based on that. Pretty dumb when you don't provide evidence. I'm not saying it doesn't or couldn't happen, but that line of attack is tautological and dumb when it's about data and numbers. I don't see the internal logic of the study being troubled here, or maybe I'm not comprehending.

 

Edit: It is true that Set B is not a subset of Set A.


Edited by accordion - 7/15/16 at 3:26am
post #4664 of 6080
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordion View Post

The latter,

Edit: It is true that Set B is not a subset of Set A.

Right, but I'm saying the following:

intersection of A and B is null in this case. But there has to be a set B' which contains B and which intersects with A (you can't get shot without interaction, I don't think the police are just sniping people from distance for no reason). So the intersection of A and B' is where the data is missing in this case, but why assume the rate of interaction in A is any different than in B' intersect A ? I just think it can inferred that they aren't different, but maybe I'm going about this incorrectly.
post #4665 of 6080

I think I get what you're saying, but to clarify.

 

Set A are arrest incidents from the Houston PD that have been randomly sampled and narrowed by variables that would justify lethal force.

 

Set B is any incident from twelve departments across the country where the officer fired a weapon at a civilian.

 

The actual cases in both Set A and B are minuscule since B comes from a much larger pool. But it's assumed that the rate of interaction is more or less the same across those cities compared to Houston.

 

There may be mutually exclusive elements in A and B, for example, if someone was shot but no one was arrested or charged, innocent bystander, etc, B not A, or if someone resisted arrest but no gun/taser was used, A not B.

 

If B' is where B intersects with A, the tweet quoted by the blog is saying the arrest rate of B' is different from the rest of A. That cops are more likely to stick some charges on the civilians they shot to justify shooting them. It also says B' is different from the rest of B, in that cops are more likely to under-report shootings of blacks.


Edited by accordion - 7/15/16 at 10:22am
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?