Police Shootings - Anyone Else Tired of Being Gaslit?

[Caleb8844]

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force | Roland G. Fryer, Jr.

Harvard University set out to do an exhaustive study on the role of race in police encounters and, specifically, police shootings.

In order to do this, they pulled data from four main sources:

1: NYC's Stop, Question, and Frisk program

2olice-Public Contact Survey ("a triennial survey of a nationally representative sample of civilians, which contains { from the civilian point of view } a description of interactions with police, which includesuses of force"),

3: "Event summaries from all incidents in which an ocer discharges his weapon at civilians { including both hits and misses { from three large cities in Texas (Austin, Dallas, Houston), six large Florida counties,and Los Angeles County"

4: "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 ocer, aggravated assault on a public safety ocer,resisting arrest, evading arrest, and interfering in arrest."

The conclusions are summarized as follows:

"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. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account"

So, do we suspect that our elected officials are just by-and-large ill-informed enough not to be aware of these and similar studies, or is there some other motivation for gaslighting the populace about the increased probability of minorities being shot by police?

 

[BVS]

We've actually already talked about this paper in another thread.

Here's a condensed version and a good place to start:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/harvard-study-officer-involved-shootings/

No one's gaslighting you, it just doesn't fit your chosen narrative.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Oregoropa]

Snopes to the rescue


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

Snopes to the rescue


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Like I said, we've already discussed it, it's a simple way to look at condensed version of the disputes and their sources.

I know, I know it's liberal bias forces them to cite and use sources. It's evil.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Caleb8844]

Historically, I've been predisposed to not be on the police's side on these issues, as I don't particularly like the police, and the idea that the police have racial biases passes the sniff test for me. However, as more recent cases have been less and less persuasive, and as I've looked at the raw data myself, I've become slightly less convinced.

You've given me an article that complains that the paper has yet to be peer reviewed. This is fine and a legitimate point. However, it's not as though Roland G. Fryer, Jr. is a random citizen on the street. The paper is fairly freshly released. The peer reviewing process takes time. Is it possible minor changes will be made? Certainly. Is it likely that Fryer bullshit this report? Hardly. You can figure out who Fryer is on your own.

Next up: where it was published. Academics regularly publish their research in a myriad of places. The fact that Harvard itself did not publish this report does not suddenly make Fryer not a tenured Harvard professor

The Vox article clearly doesn't understand the purpose of the study, instead redirecting to make a point about how frequently people are stopped by the police? Does it not seem a little strange that your fact check references something completely unrelated to the study? You're smart enough to see this as a red flag in reference to the objectivity of your fact check, I certainly hope.

Now, the kicker, from your own fact check:

"Fryer's findings weren't necessarily misleading, incorrect, or wrong, but there were numerous obvious problems with the bombastic manner in which the New York Times framed his paper"

Your fact check says that the findings weren't misleading, incorrect, or wrong.

 

[Caleb8844]

Your rebuttal mostly attacks the idea that the paper has yet to be peer reviewed. You realize this doesn't mean it didn't "cite and use sources," right?

 

[BVS]

Historically, I've been predisposed to not be on the police's side on these issues, as I don't particularly like the police, and the idea that the police have racial biases passes the sniff test for me. However, as more recent cases have been less and less persuasive, and as I've looked at the raw data myself, I've become slightly less convinced.

You've given me an article that complains that the paper has yet to be peer reviewed. This is fine and a legitimate point. However, it's not as though Roland G. Fryer, Jr. is a random citizen on the street. The paper is fairly freshly released. The peer reviewing process takes time. Is it possible minor changes will be made? Certainly. Is it likely that Fryer bullshit this report? Hardly. You can figure out who Fryer is on your own.

Next up: where it was published. Academics regularly publish their research in a myriad of places. The fact that Harvard itself did not publish this report does not suddenly make Fryer not a tenured Harvard professor

The vice article (really, you gave me a fact check that references a vice article. Do you not feel at least a little embarrassed on that one? Okay.) clearly doesn't understand the purpose of the study, instead redirecting to make a point about how frequently people are stopped by the police? Does it not seem a little strange that your fact check references something completely unrelated to the study? You're smart enough to see this as a red flag in reference to the objectivity of your fact check, I certainly hope.

Now, the kicker, from your own fact check:

Your fact check says that the findings weren't misleading, incorrect, or wrong.

Vice? Not sure what you're going on about?

"Findings weren't misleading..." yes, but if you read in depth the articles, that was part of their point. He wasn't necessarily lying, just using very limited and skewed facts.

I don't have time right now, but later I'll go into more detail.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Caleb8844]

Vice? Not sure what you're going on about?

"Findings weren't misleading..." yes, but if you read in depth the articles, that was part of their point. He wasn't necessarily lying, just using very limited and skewed facts.

I don't have time right now, but later I'll go into more detail.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

There's a lot of good debate to be had about this study, and if you actually read the study, he gives a lot of caveats, and points out frequently how data could be interpreted this or that way, or could be less than accurate because of xyz.

The part about "not necessarily lying," is more accurately ascribed to the way the NYT covered it, not the paper itself. That's the point being made, there.

If they wanted to say someone was using limited of skewed facts, they would say that the findings weren't inaccurate, just misleading. Such a case is exactly the type the word "misleading" is made for.

I misspoke, by Vice, I meant Vox. Vox is not serious journalism by any stretch of the imagination.

Look forward to talking more in depth about the study when you get the chance! I'm open to being persuaded that it isn't an accurate portrayal of things -- heck, the study persuaded me to change my opinions in the first place, so no harm in changing again -- but it certainly can't be written off as bullshit.