tree_, these are the next two paragraphs immediately following the ones you quoted. Additionally, from the abstract onward the paper is very clear that police are significantly more likely to use non-lethal force on minorities than whites.
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.
Relatedly, even police departments willing to supply data may contain police officers who present
contextual factors at that time of an incident in a biased manner – making it difficult to interpret
regression coefficients in the standard way. It is exceedingly difficult to know how prevalent this
type of misreporting bias is (Schneider 1977). Accounting for contextual variables recorded by
police officers who may have an incentive to distort the truth is problematic. Yet, whether or not
we include controls does not alter the basic qualitative conclusions. And, to the extent that there
are racial differences in underreporting of non-lethal use of force (and police are more likely to not
report force used on blacks), our estimates may be a lower bound. Not reporting officer-involved
shootings seems unlikely.
Tell me if this isn't fair but it seems like your current strategy is:
1. View the protests as being entirely about police murdering black people.
2. Point to a study that suggests police don't kill black people at a higher rate than white people.
3. Conclude that the study debunks the movement.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
tree_ wrote:I don't think you're looking at the numbers correctly.
I'm reading them exactly how bi_3 did, and I'm fairly sure he's reading them correctly. Slightly more than 5% of black respondents stopped claimed they were threatened by or victims of use of force by officers, or about 1 in 20, compared to 2% of white respondents, or 1 in 50.
tree_ wrote:I don't think you're looking at the numbers correctly.
I'm reading them exactly how bi_3 did, and I'm fairly sure he's reading them correctly. Slightly more than 5% of black respondents stopped claimed they were threatened by or victims of use of force by officers, or about 1 in 20, compared to 2% of white respondents, or 1 in 50.
Yes, it is higher for blacks. But you have to account for rates of crime and the number of people actually stopped by police. It isn't equivalent to stepping on an airplane with a 1/20 chance of extreme turbulence.
4/5 wrote:tree_, these are the next two paragraphs immediately following the ones you quoted. Additionally, from the abstract onward the paper is very clear that police are significantly more likely to use non-lethal force on minorities than whites.
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.
Relatedly, even police departments willing to supply data may contain police officers who present
contextual factors at that time of an incident in a biased manner – making it difficult to interpret
regression coefficients in the standard way. It is exceedingly difficult to know how prevalent this
type of misreporting bias is (Schneider 1977). Accounting for contextual variables recorded by
police officers who may have an incentive to distort the truth is problematic. Yet, whether or not
we include controls does not alter the basic qualitative conclusions. And, to the extent that there
are racial differences in underreporting of non-lethal use of force (and police are more likely to not
report force used on blacks), our estimates may be a lower bound. Not reporting officer-involved
shootings seems unlikely.
Tell me if this isn't fair but it seems like your current strategy is:
1. View the protests as being entirely about police murdering black people.
2. Point to a study that suggests police don't kill black people at a higher rate than white people.
3. Conclude that the study debunks the movement.
I'm simply tired of the lie that police are hunting blacks in the streets. There are changes that need to be made, but the protests, the narrative is focused on lies. And the lies simply cause more harm than they do good.
Last edited by tree_ on Thu June 18, 2020 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
4/5 wrote:tree_, these are the next two paragraphs immediately following the ones you quoted. Additionally, from the abstract onward the paper is very clear that police are significantly more likely to use non-lethal force on minorities than whites.
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.
Relatedly, even police departments willing to supply data may contain police officers who present
contextual factors at that time of an incident in a biased manner – making it difficult to interpret
regression coefficients in the standard way. It is exceedingly difficult to know how prevalent this
type of misreporting bias is (Schneider 1977). Accounting for contextual variables recorded by
police officers who may have an incentive to distort the truth is problematic. Yet, whether or not
we include controls does not alter the basic qualitative conclusions. And, to the extent that there
are racial differences in underreporting of non-lethal use of force (and police are more likely to not
report force used on blacks), our estimates may be a lower bound. Not reporting officer-involved
shootings seems unlikely.
Tell me if this isn't fair but it seems like your current strategy is:
1. View the protests as being entirely about police murdering black people.
2. Point to a study that suggests police don't kill black people at a higher rate than white people.
3. Conclude that the study debunks the movement.
I'm simply tired of the lie that police are hunting blacks in the streets. There are changes that need to be made, but the protests, the narrative is focused on lies. And the lies simply cause more harm than they do good.
Tree. I truly don't understand how you dont see your behavior here and why people are sick of engaging you.
tree_ wrote:I'm simply tired of the lie that police are hunting blacks in the streets. There are changes that need to be made, but the protests, the narrative is focused on lies. And the lies simply cause more harm than they do good.
But is anybody seriously saying that? That sounds like a strawman designed to justify ignoring/criticizing the protests.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
tree_ wrote:I don't think you're looking at the numbers correctly.
I'm reading them exactly how bi_3 did, and I'm fairly sure he's reading them correctly. Slightly more than 5% of black respondents stopped claimed they were threatened by or victims of use of force by officers, or about 1 in 20, compared to 2% of white respondents, or 1 in 50.
Yes, it is higher for blacks. But you have to account for rates of crime and the number of people actually stopped by police. It isn't equivalent to stepping on an airplane with a 1/20 chance of extreme turbulence.
Your problem is that you're making the leap that those stops are warranted. Why are black people being stopped more by police?
tree_ wrote:I'm simply tired of the lie that police are hunting blacks in the streets. There are changes that need to be made, but the protests, the narrative is focused on lies. And the lies simply cause more harm than they do good.
But is anybody seriously saying that? That sounds like a strawman designed to justify ignoring/criticizing the protests.
"Stop killing us", "I can't breathe"... these are the chants. And the names of the victims. Black people being victims of police shootings is not the biggest issue for black people. There are important changes that need to be made, but this is nowhere near the top of the list.
tree_ wrote:I don't think you're looking at the numbers correctly.
I'm reading them exactly how bi_3 did, and I'm fairly sure he's reading them correctly. Slightly more than 5% of black respondents stopped claimed they were threatened by or victims of use of force by officers, or about 1 in 20, compared to 2% of white respondents, or 1 in 50.
Yes, it is higher for blacks. But you have to account for rates of crime and the number of people actually stopped by police. It isn't equivalent to stepping on an airplane with a 1/20 chance of extreme turbulence.
Your problem is that you're making the leap that those stops are warranted. Why are black people being stopped more by police?
tree_ wrote:I don't think you're looking at the numbers correctly.
I'm reading them exactly how bi_3 did, and I'm fairly sure he's reading them correctly. Slightly more than 5% of black respondents stopped claimed they were threatened by or victims of use of force by officers, or about 1 in 20, compared to 2% of white respondents, or 1 in 50.
Yes, it is higher for blacks. But you have to account for rates of crime and the number of people actually stopped by police. It isn't equivalent to stepping on an airplane with a 1/20 chance of extreme turbulence.
Your problem is that you're making the leap that those stops are warranted. Why are black people being stopped more by police?
Because the crime rate is higher.
Does living in or driving through an area with a higher crime rate give police probable cause to search a vehicle or stop someone?
tree_ wrote:I don't think you're looking at the numbers correctly.
I'm reading them exactly how bi_3 did, and I'm fairly sure he's reading them correctly. Slightly more than 5% of black respondents stopped claimed they were threatened by or victims of use of force by officers, or about 1 in 20, compared to 2% of white respondents, or 1 in 50.
Yes, it is higher for blacks. But you have to account for rates of crime and the number of people actually stopped by police. It isn't equivalent to stepping on an airplane with a 1/20 chance of extreme turbulence.
Your problem is that you're making the leap that those stops are warranted. Why are black people being stopped more by police?
Because the crime rate is higher.
Does living in or driving through an area with a higher crime rate give police probable cause to search a vehicle or stop someone?
tree_ wrote:I don't think you're looking at the numbers correctly.
I'm reading them exactly how bi_3 did, and I'm fairly sure he's reading them correctly. Slightly more than 5% of black respondents stopped claimed they were threatened by or victims of use of force by officers, or about 1 in 20, compared to 2% of white respondents, or 1 in 50.
Yes, it is higher for blacks. But you have to account for rates of crime and the number of people actually stopped by police. It isn't equivalent to stepping on an airplane with a 1/20 chance of extreme turbulence.
Your problem is that you're making the leap that those stops are warranted. Why are black people being stopped more by police?
Because the crime rate is higher.
Does living in or driving through an area with a higher crime rate give police probable cause to search a vehicle or stop someone?
If the cop is racist, sure.
Let me tell you, Homer Simpson is cock of nothing!
- C. Montgomery Burns
But stopping someone is based on activity, not the neighborhood where you reside. Are you saying that black people are more often doing things that will make police suspicious and stop their vehicle/stop them on the street?
digster wrote:But stopping someone is based on suspicious activity, not location. Are you saying that black people are more often doing things that will make police suspicious and stop their vehicle/stop them on the street?
I'm saying that, in areas with higher crime, people will have more encounters with police.
digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.
Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?
So what are the justifiable reasons? If there isn't bias at play, the amount of stops of black individuals being far higher than those of whites should be easily explained. And what's making an officer think that a person walking or driving down the street of a high-crime area, as you put it, lives in that area?
digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.
Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?
This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.
How so? I'm not saying being black makes you a criminal. You're assuming too much. Black people happen to have a huge problem with poverty. Poverty creates crime. We'd probably agree on nearly everything as to why black people have this problem. But blaming everything on police is a dead end.
