|
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 13 2016 06:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:Is this the post people are talking about? Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 03:48 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 12 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. 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. 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.
Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:58 OtherWorld wrote:On July 13 2016 05:46 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:44 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 05:39 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 05:18 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
it's mostly because of that one guy who did that study, which was later retracted, who was really pushing for the issue.
That, and people often base conclusions from their own experience, ignoring the statistical realities; that's why people often have all sorts of superstitions. For some people, the events coincided in time, so they chose to assign blame that way, even though it's unsound. Most people aren't very logical. Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting. most people aren't claiming that cops go out of their way to murder blacks cuz of racism; they're claiming that due to racism, some cops go too far, more than they do with whites, and that they aren't adequately punished when they do so. and that people are mostly emotional rather than logical is very well established by now certainly, agreed. They don't though. It's been statistically proven to be the opposite with regards to lethal use of force. no, it hasn't. someone posted quite a thorough rebuttal to the studies you cited, and the studies themselves included in their caveats things that nullified the claim you're making with them. and it has been proven that in some places the cops were seriously and systemically racist. And the studies ignored the fact that much of the data we have on the use of force by police in the US is incomplete. What we know though is that the formation of an American policeman includes 110 hours of gun training and only 8 hours of mediation/resolution of conflicts. As a European I can barely understand how such a thing can even exist. Its almost like US police departments see the gun and violence as conflict resolution. To me it sounds like its not something unique to US police department, but americans in general, specially those who choose to defend their right to have a weapon for self defense. But again i wonder how much time they spend training CQC techniques oppossed to using a gun, because they seem to focus too much on the gun as a crutch to get compliance even on situations where there are no guns involved. They certainly don't spend enough time training CQC techniques. It also doesn't help that we have apparently zero physical fitness requirements. The amount of unbelievably obese police you see is cause for alarm. Do you really think a 325lb cop wants to get into a foot race or any feat of strength with a even remotely in shape individual? There's no excuse for allowing people to turn into Santa and stay on the force. Sorry, we have some requirements because your job requires possibly getting physical.
I'm fine with fat cops on desk duty. But yes anyone going out on the street should meet certain physical standards required to adequately perform their duties.
|
On July 13 2016 06:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:Is this the post people are talking about? Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 03:48 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 12 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. 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. 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.
That would indeed be the post referencing the study noting the issues with the dataset itself.
|
On July 13 2016 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:Is this the post people are talking about? On July 12 2016 03:48 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 12 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. 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. 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.
On July 13 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:58 OtherWorld wrote:On July 13 2016 05:46 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:44 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 05:39 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting. most people aren't claiming that cops go out of their way to murder blacks cuz of racism; they're claiming that due to racism, some cops go too far, more than they do with whites, and that they aren't adequately punished when they do so. and that people are mostly emotional rather than logical is very well established by now certainly, agreed. They don't though. It's been statistically proven to be the opposite with regards to lethal use of force. no, it hasn't. someone posted quite a thorough rebuttal to the studies you cited, and the studies themselves included in their caveats things that nullified the claim you're making with them. and it has been proven that in some places the cops were seriously and systemically racist. And the studies ignored the fact that much of the data we have on the use of force by police in the US is incomplete. What we know though is that the formation of an American policeman includes 110 hours of gun training and only 8 hours of mediation/resolution of conflicts. As a European I can barely understand how such a thing can even exist. Its almost like US police departments see the gun and violence as conflict resolution. To me it sounds like its not something unique to US police department, but americans in general, specially those who choose to defend their right to have a weapon for self defense. But again i wonder how much time they spend training CQC techniques oppossed to using a gun, because they seem to focus too much on the gun as a crutch to get compliance even on situations where there are no guns involved. They certainly don't spend enough time training CQC techniques. It also doesn't help that we have apparently zero physical fitness requirements. The amount of unbelievably obese police you see is cause for alarm. Do you really think a 325lb cop wants to get into a foot race or any feat of strength with a even remotely in shape individual? There's no excuse for allowing people to turn into Santa and stay on the force. Sorry, we have some requirements because your job requires possibly getting physical. I'm fine with fat cops on desk duty. But yes anyone going out on the street should meet certain physical standards required to adequately perform their duties.
My brother gets paid by his military job to stay in shape, police departments should do the same. And provide better training. But that costs money and people in America hate spending money on public services.
|
On July 13 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2016 06:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:Is this the post people are talking about? On July 12 2016 03:48 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 12 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. 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. 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.
On July 13 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:58 OtherWorld wrote:On July 13 2016 05:46 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:44 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 05:39 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
most people aren't claiming that cops go out of their way to murder blacks cuz of racism; they're claiming that due to racism, some cops go too far, more than they do with whites, and that they aren't adequately punished when they do so.
and that people are mostly emotional rather than logical is very well established by now certainly, agreed. They don't though. It's been statistically proven to be the opposite with regards to lethal use of force. no, it hasn't. someone posted quite a thorough rebuttal to the studies you cited, and the studies themselves included in their caveats things that nullified the claim you're making with them. and it has been proven that in some places the cops were seriously and systemically racist. And the studies ignored the fact that much of the data we have on the use of force by police in the US is incomplete. What we know though is that the formation of an American policeman includes 110 hours of gun training and only 8 hours of mediation/resolution of conflicts. As a European I can barely understand how such a thing can even exist. Its almost like US police departments see the gun and violence as conflict resolution. To me it sounds like its not something unique to US police department, but americans in general, specially those who choose to defend their right to have a weapon for self defense. But again i wonder how much time they spend training CQC techniques oppossed to using a gun, because they seem to focus too much on the gun as a crutch to get compliance even on situations where there are no guns involved. They certainly don't spend enough time training CQC techniques. It also doesn't help that we have apparently zero physical fitness requirements. The amount of unbelievably obese police you see is cause for alarm. Do you really think a 325lb cop wants to get into a foot race or any feat of strength with a even remotely in shape individual? There's no excuse for allowing people to turn into Santa and stay on the force. Sorry, we have some requirements because your job requires possibly getting physical. I'm fine with fat cops on desk duty. But yes anyone going out on the street should meet certain physical standards required to adequately perform their duties. My brother gets paid by his military job to stay in shape, police departments should do the same. And provide better training. But that costs money and people in America hate spending money on public services.
Not just in america. Most police forces in europe are underfunded too. (edit: that being said, this doesn't excuse retarded decisions to buy actual military equipment like fucking bearcats)
Sidenote. How much psychological training, and training in deescalation are mandatory in the US?
|
United States42016 Posts
At the risk of summoning Nettles the SP500 is on a surge right now. All time high and pushing higher. A good economy, probably more than any other factor, helps the incumbent party.
|
On July 13 2016 07:00 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2016 06:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:Is this the post people are talking about? On July 12 2016 03:48 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 12 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. 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. 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.
On July 13 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:58 OtherWorld wrote:On July 13 2016 05:46 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:44 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
They don't though. It's been statistically proven to be the opposite with regards to lethal use of force. no, it hasn't. someone posted quite a thorough rebuttal to the studies you cited, and the studies themselves included in their caveats things that nullified the claim you're making with them. and it has been proven that in some places the cops were seriously and systemically racist. And the studies ignored the fact that much of the data we have on the use of force by police in the US is incomplete. What we know though is that the formation of an American policeman includes 110 hours of gun training and only 8 hours of mediation/resolution of conflicts. As a European I can barely understand how such a thing can even exist. Its almost like US police departments see the gun and violence as conflict resolution. To me it sounds like its not something unique to US police department, but americans in general, specially those who choose to defend their right to have a weapon for self defense. But again i wonder how much time they spend training CQC techniques oppossed to using a gun, because they seem to focus too much on the gun as a crutch to get compliance even on situations where there are no guns involved. They certainly don't spend enough time training CQC techniques. It also doesn't help that we have apparently zero physical fitness requirements. The amount of unbelievably obese police you see is cause for alarm. Do you really think a 325lb cop wants to get into a foot race or any feat of strength with a even remotely in shape individual? There's no excuse for allowing people to turn into Santa and stay on the force. Sorry, we have some requirements because your job requires possibly getting physical. I'm fine with fat cops on desk duty. But yes anyone going out on the street should meet certain physical standards required to adequately perform their duties. My brother gets paid by his military job to stay in shape, police departments should do the same. And provide better training. But that costs money and people in America hate spending money on public services. Not just in america. Most police forces in europe are underfunded too. (edit: that being said, this doesn't excuse retarded decisions to buy actual military equipment like fucking bearcats) Sidenote. How much psychological training, and training in deescalation are mandatory in the US?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/long-taught-to-use-force-police-warily-learn-to-de-escalate.html?_r=0
Not enough:
The training regimens at nearly all of the nation’s police academies continue to emphasize military-style exercises, including significant hours spent practicing drill, formation and saluting, said Maria R. Haberfeld, a professor of police science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Many police officials now say that even while these approaches might have helped reduce crime, they have also impeded officers’ ability to win the public’s cooperation and trust.
“What is the collateral damage after that policing strategy?” asked Charles H. Ramsey, the police commissioner in Philadelphia, where the department is also under a federal order to make extensive policy changes, including in training. “Have we alienated people? Yeah, you solved the problem and lowered the numbers, but if you’ve alienated people, have you served your purpose?”
Officials say that given the combination of lower crime and elevated public mistrust of the police, defusing heated situations is simply better policing.
“If we ask people instead of telling them, and if we give them a reason for why we’re doing something, we get much less resistance,” said Gary T. Klugiewicz, a retired Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office captain and former chairman of the now defunct American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, who trains police in de-escalation techniques. “If we just started to treat people with dignity and respect, things would go much better.”
Lets all take a moment to reflect on the novel idea of asking and providing a reason for something yields better results than ordering someone. Basic parenting 101 and communication 101 is a new idea of US police departments. This is how far we have to go.
|
On July 13 2016 07:03 KwarK wrote:
At the risk of summoning Nettles the SP500 is on a surge right now. All time high and pushing higher. A good economy, probably more than any other factor, helps the incumbent party.
I believe its the Japan effect in this case and not higher earnings necessarily. Also the jobs report seemed to have little effect on the probability of a rate hike in the next few months so investors are not worried at all. Up the S&P goes.
|
How is the application proccess to be a cop in the US ? Here for example it can perfectly take you years of preparation for the exams and the physical tests, and you are still competing with a good amount of applicants for the spot.
|
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion.
|
On July 13 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:00 m4ini wrote:On July 13 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2016 06:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:Is this the post people are talking about? On July 12 2016 03:48 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 12 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. 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. 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.
On July 13 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:58 OtherWorld wrote:On July 13 2016 05:46 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:44 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
no, it hasn't. someone posted quite a thorough rebuttal to the studies you cited, and the studies themselves included in their caveats things that nullified the claim you're making with them.
and it has been proven that in some places the cops were seriously and systemically racist. And the studies ignored the fact that much of the data we have on the use of force by police in the US is incomplete. What we know though is that the formation of an American policeman includes 110 hours of gun training and only 8 hours of mediation/resolution of conflicts. As a European I can barely understand how such a thing can even exist. Its almost like US police departments see the gun and violence as conflict resolution. To me it sounds like its not something unique to US police department, but americans in general, specially those who choose to defend their right to have a weapon for self defense. But again i wonder how much time they spend training CQC techniques oppossed to using a gun, because they seem to focus too much on the gun as a crutch to get compliance even on situations where there are no guns involved. They certainly don't spend enough time training CQC techniques. It also doesn't help that we have apparently zero physical fitness requirements. The amount of unbelievably obese police you see is cause for alarm. Do you really think a 325lb cop wants to get into a foot race or any feat of strength with a even remotely in shape individual? There's no excuse for allowing people to turn into Santa and stay on the force. Sorry, we have some requirements because your job requires possibly getting physical. I'm fine with fat cops on desk duty. But yes anyone going out on the street should meet certain physical standards required to adequately perform their duties. My brother gets paid by his military job to stay in shape, police departments should do the same. And provide better training. But that costs money and people in America hate spending money on public services. Not just in america. Most police forces in europe are underfunded too. (edit: that being said, this doesn't excuse retarded decisions to buy actual military equipment like fucking bearcats) Sidenote. How much psychological training, and training in deescalation are mandatory in the US? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/long-taught-to-use-force-police-warily-learn-to-de-escalate.html?_r=0Not enough: Show nested quote +The training regimens at nearly all of the nation’s police academies continue to emphasize military-style exercises, including significant hours spent practicing drill, formation and saluting, said Maria R. Haberfeld, a professor of police science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Many police officials now say that even while these approaches might have helped reduce crime, they have also impeded officers’ ability to win the public’s cooperation and trust.
“What is the collateral damage after that policing strategy?” asked Charles H. Ramsey, the police commissioner in Philadelphia, where the department is also under a federal order to make extensive policy changes, including in training. “Have we alienated people? Yeah, you solved the problem and lowered the numbers, but if you’ve alienated people, have you served your purpose?”
Officials say that given the combination of lower crime and elevated public mistrust of the police, defusing heated situations is simply better policing.
“If we ask people instead of telling them, and if we give them a reason for why we’re doing something, we get much less resistance,” said Gary T. Klugiewicz, a retired Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office captain and former chairman of the now defunct American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, who trains police in de-escalation techniques. “If we just started to treat people with dignity and respect, things would go much better.” Lets all take a moment to reflect on the novel idea of asking and providing a reason for something yields better results than ordering someone. Basic parenting 101 and communication 101 is a new idea of US police departments. This is how far we have to go.
.. wow.
Not much else to say there. Guess cowboys be cowboys.
|
On July 13 2016 07:06 Godwrath wrote:
How is the application proccess to be a cop in the US ? Here for example it can perfectly take you years of preparation for the exams and the physical tests, and you are still competing with a good amount of applicants for the spot.
It has to be regional, but there is a civil service example in my state. I believe a 4 year degree is a basic requirement.
However, we also were taking troops directly from tours in Iraq and putting them to work as police offices with minimal training. I think we might have ended that program, but I doubt it.
We are the country that declared war on crime because it was something that could be beaten.
|
On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion.
Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this!
|
On July 13 2016 07:09 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 07:00 m4ini wrote:On July 13 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2016 06:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:Is this the post people are talking about? On July 12 2016 03:48 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 12 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. 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. 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.
On July 13 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:58 OtherWorld wrote:On July 13 2016 05:46 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
And the studies ignored the fact that much of the data we have on the use of force by police in the US is incomplete. What we know though is that the formation of an American policeman includes 110 hours of gun training and only 8 hours of mediation/resolution of conflicts. As a European I can barely understand how such a thing can even exist. Its almost like US police departments see the gun and violence as conflict resolution. To me it sounds like its not something unique to US police department, but americans in general, specially those who choose to defend their right to have a weapon for self defense. But again i wonder how much time they spend training CQC techniques oppossed to using a gun, because they seem to focus too much on the gun as a crutch to get compliance even on situations where there are no guns involved. They certainly don't spend enough time training CQC techniques. It also doesn't help that we have apparently zero physical fitness requirements. The amount of unbelievably obese police you see is cause for alarm. Do you really think a 325lb cop wants to get into a foot race or any feat of strength with a even remotely in shape individual? There's no excuse for allowing people to turn into Santa and stay on the force. Sorry, we have some requirements because your job requires possibly getting physical. I'm fine with fat cops on desk duty. But yes anyone going out on the street should meet certain physical standards required to adequately perform their duties. My brother gets paid by his military job to stay in shape, police departments should do the same. And provide better training. But that costs money and people in America hate spending money on public services. Not just in america. Most police forces in europe are underfunded too. (edit: that being said, this doesn't excuse retarded decisions to buy actual military equipment like fucking bearcats) Sidenote. How much psychological training, and training in deescalation are mandatory in the US? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/long-taught-to-use-force-police-warily-learn-to-de-escalate.html?_r=0Not enough: The training regimens at nearly all of the nation’s police academies continue to emphasize military-style exercises, including significant hours spent practicing drill, formation and saluting, said Maria R. Haberfeld, a professor of police science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Many police officials now say that even while these approaches might have helped reduce crime, they have also impeded officers’ ability to win the public’s cooperation and trust.
“What is the collateral damage after that policing strategy?” asked Charles H. Ramsey, the police commissioner in Philadelphia, where the department is also under a federal order to make extensive policy changes, including in training. “Have we alienated people? Yeah, you solved the problem and lowered the numbers, but if you’ve alienated people, have you served your purpose?”
Officials say that given the combination of lower crime and elevated public mistrust of the police, defusing heated situations is simply better policing.
“If we ask people instead of telling them, and if we give them a reason for why we’re doing something, we get much less resistance,” said Gary T. Klugiewicz, a retired Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office captain and former chairman of the now defunct American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, who trains police in de-escalation techniques. “If we just started to treat people with dignity and respect, things would go much better.” Lets all take a moment to reflect on the novel idea of asking and providing a reason for something yields better results than ordering someone. Basic parenting 101 and communication 101 is a new idea of US police departments. This is how far we have to go. .. wow. Not much else to say there. Guess cowboys be cowboys.
The culture of our police departments is endless tied to military culture and seperating the two is met with a lot of push back. Police see any attempt to do so as something that would endanger them. But many fail to reflect that the increased militarization only makes the population wary of the police.
The Dallas Police department is a prime example of good policing in the US, ironically.
|
On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this!
Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages?
|
On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages?
yes last page
|
CLEVELAND — Republicans crafting a party platform in Cleveland quietly voted Monday in favor of building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, ratifying one of presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump’s most controversial proposals.
The language added to the party’s platform does not say anything about who will pay for the wall. Trump has repeatedly promised he will make Mexico pay for it, though the Mexican president has said there is “no way” that will happen.
The platform will express support for a “border wall” that must cover “the entirety of the Southern Border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.”
The measure, proposed by Trump supporter Kris Kobach, the secretary of state from Kansas, was approved unanimously in the subcommittee meeting on Monday.
In the full committee hearing on Tuesday, the new language did not attract any opposition or amendments. That policy plank of the party’s platform was adopted without even passing debate about the wall or immigration reform.
The 2016 Republican Platform Committee has strengthened the wording in its policy document to match the presumptive nominee’s campaign promise.
The 2012 platform stated that “the double-layered fencing” that was authorized by Congress in 2006 but never completed “must finally be built.”
The 2016 working draft of the platform called for “construction of a physical barrier” — language that Trump supporters saw as being open to alternate, and weaker, interpretations of his suggested wall.
Source
|
On July 13 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:09 m4ini wrote:On July 13 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 07:00 m4ini wrote:On July 13 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2016 06:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:Is this the post people are talking about? On July 12 2016 03:48 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 12 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. 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. 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.
On July 13 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:58 OtherWorld wrote:
[quote]
What we know though is that the formation of an American policeman includes 110 hours of gun training and only 8 hours of mediation/resolution of conflicts.
As a European I can barely understand how such a thing can even exist. Its almost like US police departments see the gun and violence as conflict resolution. To me it sounds like its not something unique to US police department, but americans in general, specially those who choose to defend their right to have a weapon for self defense. But again i wonder how much time they spend training CQC techniques oppossed to using a gun, because they seem to focus too much on the gun as a crutch to get compliance even on situations where there are no guns involved. They certainly don't spend enough time training CQC techniques. It also doesn't help that we have apparently zero physical fitness requirements. The amount of unbelievably obese police you see is cause for alarm. Do you really think a 325lb cop wants to get into a foot race or any feat of strength with a even remotely in shape individual? There's no excuse for allowing people to turn into Santa and stay on the force. Sorry, we have some requirements because your job requires possibly getting physical. I'm fine with fat cops on desk duty. But yes anyone going out on the street should meet certain physical standards required to adequately perform their duties. My brother gets paid by his military job to stay in shape, police departments should do the same. And provide better training. But that costs money and people in America hate spending money on public services. Not just in america. Most police forces in europe are underfunded too. (edit: that being said, this doesn't excuse retarded decisions to buy actual military equipment like fucking bearcats) Sidenote. How much psychological training, and training in deescalation are mandatory in the US? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/long-taught-to-use-force-police-warily-learn-to-de-escalate.html?_r=0Not enough: The training regimens at nearly all of the nation’s police academies continue to emphasize military-style exercises, including significant hours spent practicing drill, formation and saluting, said Maria R. Haberfeld, a professor of police science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Many police officials now say that even while these approaches might have helped reduce crime, they have also impeded officers’ ability to win the public’s cooperation and trust.
“What is the collateral damage after that policing strategy?” asked Charles H. Ramsey, the police commissioner in Philadelphia, where the department is also under a federal order to make extensive policy changes, including in training. “Have we alienated people? Yeah, you solved the problem and lowered the numbers, but if you’ve alienated people, have you served your purpose?”
Officials say that given the combination of lower crime and elevated public mistrust of the police, defusing heated situations is simply better policing.
“If we ask people instead of telling them, and if we give them a reason for why we’re doing something, we get much less resistance,” said Gary T. Klugiewicz, a retired Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office captain and former chairman of the now defunct American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, who trains police in de-escalation techniques. “If we just started to treat people with dignity and respect, things would go much better.” Lets all take a moment to reflect on the novel idea of asking and providing a reason for something yields better results than ordering someone. Basic parenting 101 and communication 101 is a new idea of US police departments. This is how far we have to go. .. wow. Not much else to say there. Guess cowboys be cowboys. The culture of our police departments is endless tied to military culture and seperating the two is met with a lot of push back. Police see any attempt to do so as something that would endanger them. But many fail to reflect that the increased militarization only makes the population wary of the police. The Dallas Police department is a prime example of good policing in the US, ironically.
It's weird to me that the concept of de-escalation, or "be not provocative" somehow is such an alien concept to US cops (or their supporters). I actually had to study (albeit very briefly) that topic when i was in the military, because of guarding duties (barracks have many civilians going in and out) and interactions while deployed.
I mean, how hard can it be to grasp the fact that a considerable amount of shootings, "misunderstandings" etc can be prevented by cops not being dicks, or cowboys? Police officers are not supposed to be "alpha males". That just doesn't work. Meet another person who thinks he's "alpha", mainly for the same reason (gun somewhere, biggest contributor to "alpha-male-ism"), and you inherently have a problem. It turns into a game of chicken. A cop can't back out of an open confrontation. That's why good cops defuse a situation before in turns into a confrontation.
Contrary to popular belief, hand on the gun is not "de-escalating", but provoking.
|
On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages?
Nope. Statistics that have been posted here only heavilly dispute the "narative" and the crowd here who dissmised those statistics failed to provide any of their own.
|
On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages?
There are reports dating back to 1999 on the issue, just from a quick search:
https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways
The post did an article about it a while ago:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/08/the-big-question-about-why-police-pull-over-so-many-black-drivers/
The thurst of the piece was the intent of the office doing the stop is difficult to assess. But here is a good section:
The situation gets even more complicated with respect to vehicle searches. In this case, it's less likely that these other factors are at work. It's more likely either statistical discrimination (targeting black people because they're more likely to be carrying contraband) and outright prejudice (targeting black people because of animus toward them). The first would indicate that black people are searched more because they’re more likely to carry contraband, while the latter would say that black people are searched more often because the police have an antagonism toward them.
It’s an important difference — the former is a result of the police maximizing the number of offenders who are caught, whereas the latter is a result of the police seeking to punish black drivers. The former — what people usually mean when they say "racial profiling" — is ethically controversial for literally targeting people of certain skin colors, but sometimes defended as merely an efficient use of resources. The latter, not so much.
In simple terms, the impact of these two types of discrimination can be compared by looking at the rate people of each race are caught with contraband after they’ve been searched. If black drivers are consistently less likely to be caught with contraband than whites, that means the police are spending their time searching less-suspicious blacks rather than more-suspicious whites, indicating prejudice.
A 2006 study of police searches in Florida found no evidence of prejudice, but evidence of statistical discrimination. More recent figures from 2014 and 2015 published by the New York Times show blacks who are searched are around 20 percent less likely to be carrying contraband than whites who are searched. While that certainly raises the odds that prejudice is playing a role, it can't be said for certain without a more careful study.
There are numerous of studies about discrimination in police departments that can be discussed. And they should be discussed by region, rather than nationally. But sadly the topic of shootings becomes challenging due to the lack of transparency by police on that specific subject.
|
On July 13 2016 06:53 NukeD wrote:Poll: If the election was held today, who would you vote for?Hillary (24) 73% Trump (9) 27% 33 total votes Your vote: If the election was held today, who would you vote for? (Vote): Trump
(Vote): Hillary
Gotta give the Bernie supporters time to keep listening to Bernie praise Clinton. He spoke hours ago. They'll come around, especially after his glowing endorsement. He made it very convincing. But these are people who got a little too worked up. They need time to come down off the emotions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
