Why is it rediculous? Pols use shootings as a stick for gun control all the time especially Obama and to call the NRA a terrorist organization or whatever slogan there is this week.
Personally I think waving the bloody shirt is tacky as fuck but hey it is the game.
it is at least logical (although i'd argue quite wrong) to say more gun control = less guns in the hands of baddies (less gun toting americans blood!!) = less shootings
it is hardly logical to say this shooting is some kind of failure of obama. and would that be said any under other presidents? a bush or a trump in a few years? is that said because this one invited jay z to the white house? or *gasp* maybe because he's, you know, black?
Sickmint do you believe racial profiling is ok ?
as some strategy no, do i believe it will happen anyway and are people biased to it yes, do i think they should necessarily be punished for it no / depending on the degree, the bigger issue is with the escalation or use of force. if you are going to stop twice as many black people, not great, but when you stop them the amount of force used should be equal, blacks shouldn't be pushed around more. of course if you actually are stopping them twice as much, no surprise you'd actually start seeing more resistance, then being more apt to start pushing them around, so it's not a great cycle and it feeds itself.
cops should be able to use their best judgement to assess baddies and come home safe.
Confirmation bias. Look it up if you're unfamiliar with the term. You seem to have zero capacity to challenge data that you agree with.
Correlation is not causation. Say it twice if need be.
oh good god as if i need someone from tcg explaining confirmation bias to me. how can you *possibly claim* i have zero capacity to challenge the data when the 2 claims we have presented in this thread are 1. your personal anecdotes, which do nothing to rebuke them, and 2. ryan's killing the messenger logical fallacy. give me a break.
Some of the GLARING omissions from these studies I looked at that you cited: how many being arrested had warrants/previous records?
do you think this means a escalation or use of force becomes more justified? i don't think that one would hold up in court. you are also acting as if whites and blacks are treated equally in the criminal justice system. shall i get you some data on that too?
You do realize one of the charts shows whites are HIGHER in fatalities than blacks when dealing with police. So while they may be restrained more, or pepper sprayed, blacks are dying at a much LESS rate than whites, despite what the media might have you believe.
you mean something i explicitly pointed out in the post? then pointed to a critique that questioned the methodology of that particular stat the way that professor did it? he used the same approach as he did others, despite that for the other cops are trying to maximize the end goal (arrest of bad people) while they are trying to minimize this end goal (shoot outs) and the critique finds that a poor methodology. other methodologies in other studies did not echo the harvard conclusion.
you seem to be cherry picking the 1 metric calculated the 1 way that supports your view. yet accusing me of confirmation bias? lol.
That's the fake narrative I was referring to.
mm yes also as i pointed out this was a oft cited story in the news you consider fake, this harvard study was published a lot for this unexpected finding. it really seems the fake narrative is the one you believe, both that 1. this wasn't covered in the news and 2. cops treat whites and blacks equally.
on that note i also think you are bs'ing around what you originally met. reading your original post and our further discussion it seems clear we were both talking about police/black interactions as a whole. this seems an attempt by you to move goalposts to one specific metric because one report with one methodology challenges the common view on the metric. also a report i even had to provide for you. unfortunately for you as noted the reporting methodology is questionable and i'm hardly in a position to believe you had any clue it existed and informed your original opinion. you're just trying to use it... after the fact... to confirm your previously held belief... what's that called again?
Another question, you seem to overlook (confirmation bias), how many were resisting arrest???? Lmao this isn't hard.
None of this I seen was brought up in your links. But hey, as long as it says what you feel you'll believe it!
no it is hard, because you just commenting on that doesn't mean resisting arrest and some omitted variable accounts for all the results found. if not in data maybe it accounts for some. you assume it is always missing and it always accounts for all. (you're making an assumption... and without data saying it describes any inequity... that confirms your belief... what's that called?)
aside from that, this is not the easiest thing to tease out of the data and also mentioned in some studies. the policingequity.org for example concludes there
is a disparity, and says
a possible explanation for some of the disparity is this on page 26:
2) That significant attention should be paid to additional situational factors in attempting to quantify and explain racial disparities in use of force. For instance, might racial disparities in the tendency to resist, flee, or disrespect officers be implicated in the observed differences? Might cultural mismatches and/or officers’ perceptions of cooperation be influenced by residents’ race? There is some suggestive evidence that there are racial disparities in resistance based on research by Smith and colleagues for the National Institute of Justice. They find that the rate of officer injury is lower when arresting a White suspect than a suspect of another racial group (Smith et al., 2009). However, this finding should be taken only as suggestive, since suspect resistance was not measured in a robust manner and a number of circumstances could have contributed to this finding. Each of these possibilities gains in importance if demographics of crime do not undergird racial disparities in the use of force.
this is an an actual objective read of the situation, unlike YOUR BIASED one, which stated
"there's no discrepancy"
which has now appeared to 'evolve' to
"well, any discrepancy is just related to blacks resisting more"
the 4th dataset harvard used was only based on data that would be more justified and included these resisting arrest charges
To supplement, our fourth dataset contains 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.
this set in particularly seems to be exactly what you were asking for yet claimed didn't exist in the single report you chose to make any comment on whatsoever
We sample case IDs from five arrest categories which are more likely to contain incidence in which lethal force was justified: attempted capital murder of a public safety officer, aggravated assault on a public safety officer, resisting arrest, evading arrest, and interfering in arrest.20 This process narrowed the set of relevant arrests to 16,000 total, between 2000 and 2015. We randomly sampled five percent of these arrest records and manually coded 290 variables per arrest record. This process took between 30 and 45 minutes per record to manually keypunch and includes variables related to specific locations for calls, incidents, and arrests, suspect behavior, suspect mental health, suspect injuries, officer use of force, and officer injuries resulting from the encounter.
These data are merged with data on officer demographics and suspect’s previous arrest history to produce a comprehensive incident-level dataset on interactions between police and civilians in which lethal force may have been justified.
the actual conclusion of the paper -
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.
...
The importance of our results for racial inequality in America is unclear. 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.
Much more troubling, due to their frequency and potential impact on minority belief formation, is the possibility that racial differences in police use of non-lethal force have spillovers on myriad dimensions of racial inequality. If, for instance, blacks use their lived experience with police as evidence that the world is discriminatory, then it is easy to understand why black youth invest less in human capital or black adults are more likely to believe discrimination is an important determinant of economic outcomes. Black Dignity Matters
the part in red does not seem to bode well for your "all differences are accounted for by resisting arrest, man. lol stop being so biased !!!1"
My view was stated the only one that I'm worried about. They're all full of shit. I've watched briefings on investigations and the media fucks them up, why? For what sounds better to get the viewer to watch the news that night. You read anything online or social media and it's skewed for reaction or to direct emotion. If you think otherwise that's great and good for you.
the problem with tv news is someone has to pay for it, nobody wants to pay for it, and they have small bits of time to try and get you to watch. online can be similar for sure. the works i've linked to are all from academics or non-profits though and it's harder to find less biased sources than them. their product is not just their work but their reputation, and destroying it means less to zero more work. they also are the most transparent in saying here's where we got the data, what we did with it, here's the data if you want to do something with it yourself - etc.
it is certainly superior to "my gut feel is this"
