|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 12 2016 03:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 00:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
I mean his meeting with the Republican members of Congress had a bunch of simply saying "uh yeah not going to go to that", him being openly antagonistic, and saying he wanted to protect article 12 of the constitution.
I think at this point it's quite possible that Trump has a higher chance of not being the nominee than being elected president. Nobody else has a campaign, or money, or got any votes, how would he not be the nominee? 
theoretically there could be a revolt; some delegates have been looking at ways to do that. It's very unlikely to happen though (unless trump does something that actually alienates his base, which is pretty hard ot do).
So his statement is also meant to imply that it's almost impossible for Trump to win.
i.e. trump wins 1% chance; trump is not nominated 2%.
|
12 hour shifts are rough - it's not an easy job.
|
On July 12 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.
But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.
The result contradicts the mental image of police shootings that many Americans hold in the wake of the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Laquan McDonald in Chicago; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Samuel DuBose in Cincinnati; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota. Show nested quote +In officer-involved shootings in these 10 cities, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both of these results undercut the idea that the police wield lethal force with racial bias. Show nested quote +And in the arena of “shoot” or “don’t shoot,” Mr. Fryer found that, in tense situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot suspects if the suspect were black. This estimate was not very precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But, in a variety of models that controlled for different factors and used different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites. SourceI guess that solves the last dozen pages of debates surrounding these issues.
Just make sure you dont forget these portions of the study as well
. Using data on NYC’s Stop and Frisk program, we demonstrate that on non-lethal uses of force – putting hands on civilians (which includes slapping or grabbing) or pushing individuals into a wall or onto the ground, there are large racial differences. 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. Accounting for baseline demographics such as age and gender, encounter characteristics such as whether individuals supplied identification or whether the interaction occurred in a high- or lowcrime
area, or civilian behaviors does little to alter the race coefficient. Adding precinct and year fixed effects, which estimates racial differences in police use of force by restricting to variation within a given police precinct in a given year reduces the black coefficient by 19.4 percent and the Hispanic coefficient by 26 percent, though both are still statistically larger than zero. Including more than 125 controls available in the data, the odds-ratio on black (resp. Hispanic) is 1.173 (resp.1.120).
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.
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.
|
From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts.
|
On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote:
From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts.
130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system.
|
On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote:
From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system.
I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point.
it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context.
|
Why does it say there is no racial differences in the use of lethal force in the same article it acknowledges whites are 22% more likely to be shot than blacks?
All the statistics on non-lethal force have less than 21% differential for blacks being more likely to be subjected to non-lethal use of force and that constitutes a racial bias, but 22% more likely to be subject to lethal force as white isn't racial bias?
Is it purely going off the larger differential present in the data revolving around the civilian's takes on the encounters?
|
On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote:
From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context.
Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places.
|
That is really the city’s problem, rather than the protesters. Protests are a civil right and police have to attend them to make sure everyone is safe. Even if the protest is perfectly legal, peaceful and does not result in any arrests, police will still need to attend. It sounds like the city simply needs to spend more on police officers.
|
What happens if not enough people want to be a police officer anymore?
|
|
|
The same thing that a city does when they don’t have enough people for any profession? There is a shortage of doctors for the elderly in my area. They are offering hiring bonuses and other incentives.
|
On July 12 2016 04:13 Plansix wrote:
That is really the city’s problem, rather than the protesters. Protests are a civil right and police have to attend them to make sure everyone is safe. Even if the protest is perfectly legal, peaceful and does not result in any arrests, police will still need to attend. It sounds like the city simply needs to spend more on police officers.
It doesn't make sense to have a huge amount of slack though. And the budget for our police force is something like 200m a year already. There's just not that much money or manpower floating around for stuff like this.
|
I am not going to completely pontificate on how that city should be run, but police departments should be able to handle stuff like this without too much strain on their officers. People have a right to protest peacefully.
|
So far these protests usually involve violence and hatred against cops.
So the cops have to show up to protect 'peaceful' protesters who usually devolve into promoting hatred and violence against cops.
I would really hate to be a cop right now.
|
No, they have not. There are been plenty of peaceful protests across the country, with a few choice protests with violence. There was no violence in both Boston and NYC. If you want to discuss specific protests, place point to the specific protest and avoid generalizing.
|
On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote:
From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places.
then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good.
Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this.
Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for?
|
I just linked one from yesterday a page ago - the one in MN alone had 21 officers injured, including one with a spinal fracture injury.
I don't think I'm unfairly generalizing here when I say BLM has a history of violent and/or hateful protests.
|
On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote:
From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for?
Just because you're being peaceful doesn't mean someone else who disagrees with you can't show up and start shit.
|
On July 12 2016 04:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I just liked one from yesterday a page ago - the one in MN alone had 21 officers injured, including one with a spinal fracture injury.
I don't think I'm unfairly generalizing here when I say BLM has a history of violent and/or hateful protests.
Well you are and it is. Unless you think it is ok for me to generalize all cops are violent racists that want to murder black men. Which isn’t true and would be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
