|
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 14 2016 10:13 Soap wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:04 zulu_nation8 wrote:Here's another study that uses data from the independently compiled U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD). Let's see how quickly the people who tried throwing mud on the NYT Harvard black economics professor study will agree with this. And how many will have bothered to read it. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854#sec005The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDFdZYP0oX60mV9wVm5rGMN6pkbFWUDU0hOy6hfccwq_2wgw/viewform
Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much?
|
China26351 Posts
On July 14 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:13 Soap wrote:On July 14 2016 10:04 zulu_nation8 wrote:Here's another study that uses data from the independently compiled U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD). Let's see how quickly the people who tried throwing mud on the NYT Harvard black economics professor study will agree with this. And how many will have bothered to read it. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854#sec005The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDFdZYP0oX60mV9wVm5rGMN6pkbFWUDU0hOy6hfccwq_2wgw/viewform Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much?
I don't know what you're accusing it of, can you elaborate your accusation?
|
On July 14 2016 10:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:13 Soap wrote:On July 14 2016 10:04 zulu_nation8 wrote:Here's another study that uses data from the independently compiled U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD). Let's see how quickly the people who tried throwing mud on the NYT Harvard black economics professor study will agree with this. And how many will have bothered to read it. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854#sec005The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDFdZYP0oX60mV9wVm5rGMN6pkbFWUDU0hOy6hfccwq_2wgw/viewform Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much? I don't know what you're accusing it of, can you elaborate your accusation?
I'm sure you will figure it out on a long enough time line.
|
China26351 Posts
On July 14 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:13 Soap wrote:On July 14 2016 10:04 zulu_nation8 wrote:Here's another study that uses data from the independently compiled U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD). Let's see how quickly the people who tried throwing mud on the NYT Harvard black economics professor study will agree with this. And how many will have bothered to read it. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854#sec005The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDFdZYP0oX60mV9wVm5rGMN6pkbFWUDU0hOy6hfccwq_2wgw/viewform Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much? I don't know what you're accusing it of, can you elaborate your accusation? I'm sure you will figure it out on a long enough time line.
Lol you don't even have the balls to make an actual baseless accusation as opposed to just implying that somehow the study is faulty from a baseless accusation.
|
cnn referencing a study that shows racial bias in the use of force, but not for shootings. This goes against the normal media "narrative" and I am honestly impressed and surprised. They showed multiple shootings of young white men for a change.
|
On July 14 2016 10:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:13 Soap wrote:On July 14 2016 10:04 zulu_nation8 wrote:Here's another study that uses data from the independently compiled U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD). Let's see how quickly the people who tried throwing mud on the NYT Harvard black economics professor study will agree with this. And how many will have bothered to read it. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854#sec005The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDFdZYP0oX60mV9wVm5rGMN6pkbFWUDU0hOy6hfccwq_2wgw/viewform Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much? I don't know what you're accusing it of, can you elaborate your accusation? I'm sure you will figure it out on a long enough time line. Lol you don't even have the balls to make an actual baseless accusation as opposed to just implying that somehow the study is faulty from a baseless accusation.
How did the collect the data they were analyzing?
|
China26351 Posts
On July 14 2016 10:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:13 Soap wrote:On July 14 2016 10:04 zulu_nation8 wrote:Here's another study that uses data from the independently compiled U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD). Let's see how quickly the people who tried throwing mud on the NYT Harvard black economics professor study will agree with this. And how many will have bothered to read it. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854#sec005The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDFdZYP0oX60mV9wVm5rGMN6pkbFWUDU0hOy6hfccwq_2wgw/viewform Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much? I don't know what you're accusing it of, can you elaborate your accusation? I'm sure you will figure it out on a long enough time line. Lol you don't even have the balls to make an actual baseless accusation as opposed to just implying that somehow the study is faulty from a baseless accusation. How did the collect the data they were analyzing?
read it, you fucking illiterate, it's on the first page.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 14 2016 10:44 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:40 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:13 Soap wrote:On July 14 2016 10:04 zulu_nation8 wrote:Here's another study that uses data from the independently compiled U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD). Let's see how quickly the people who tried throwing mud on the NYT Harvard black economics professor study will agree with this. And how many will have bothered to read it. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854#sec005The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDFdZYP0oX60mV9wVm5rGMN6pkbFWUDU0hOy6hfccwq_2wgw/viewform Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much? I don't know what you're accusing it of, can you elaborate your accusation? I'm sure you will figure it out on a long enough time line. Lol you don't even have the balls to make an actual baseless accusation as opposed to just implying that somehow the study is faulty from a baseless accusation. How did the collect the data they were analyzing? read it, you fucking illiterate, it's on the first page.
How is that data base generated? How is that data collected?
|
On July 14 2016 10:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:44 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:40 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:13 Soap wrote:On July 14 2016 10:04 zulu_nation8 wrote:Here's another study that uses data from the independently compiled U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD). Let's see how quickly the people who tried throwing mud on the NYT Harvard black economics professor study will agree with this. And how many will have bothered to read it. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854#sec005The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDFdZYP0oX60mV9wVm5rGMN6pkbFWUDU0hOy6hfccwq_2wgw/viewform Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much? I don't know what you're accusing it of, can you elaborate your accusation? I'm sure you will figure it out on a long enough time line. Lol you don't even have the balls to make an actual baseless accusation as opposed to just implying that somehow the study is faulty from a baseless accusation. How did the collect the data they were analyzing? read it, you fucking illiterate, it's on the first page. How is that data base generated? How is that data collected?
By collecting verifiable incidents? Think he's right about you critiquing from a place of ignorance?
|
On July 14 2016 10:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:47 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:44 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:40 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much? I don't know what you're accusing it of, can you elaborate your accusation? I'm sure you will figure it out on a long enough time line. Lol you don't even have the balls to make an actual baseless accusation as opposed to just implying that somehow the study is faulty from a baseless accusation. How did the collect the data they were analyzing? read it, you fucking illiterate, it's on the first page. How is that data base generated? How is that data collected? By collecting verifiable incidents? Think he's right about you critiquing from a place of ignorance?
You mean crowd sourced data based on voluntary reporting with no transparent oversight or peer review? As collected public google doc? I am not going to say that the data base isn't an interesting read, but it is in no way complete.
|
On July 14 2016 10:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 14 2016 10:47 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:44 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:40 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much? I don't know what you're accusing it of, can you elaborate your accusation? I'm sure you will figure it out on a long enough time line. Lol you don't even have the balls to make an actual baseless accusation as opposed to just implying that somehow the study is faulty from a baseless accusation. How did the collect the data they were analyzing? read it, you fucking illiterate, it's on the first page. How is that data base generated? How is that data collected? By collecting verifiable incidents? Think he's right about you critiquing from a place of ignorance? You mean crowd sourced data based on voluntary reporting with no transparent oversight or peer review?
Even worse, they only collect what shows up on google.
|
China26351 Posts
this feels like conversing with the mentally challenged who can't put together a complete sentence for the other to respond to.
Anyways the study is interesting, WaPo has caught onto the conservative argument of comparing killing %s by race to crime %s by race, as opposed to race %s in general population. The study seems to say that there's still a significant racial bias when accounting for crime rates by race in individual counties.
|
i mean he's not the one who posted the harvard study after it had been discussed for 10+ pages
i did a quick scrub on the dataset. it seems like an ambitious project, and i would even say its a worthy one. however the data quality is pretty shitty because the collection method has some problems even though there's a rudimentary protocol. it's also very incomplete. out of about 2100 entries, 800+ list ethnicity as unknown. heck, 250+ of them dont have a gender OR ethnicity listed. that means close to half the dataset is junk.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/h7GQpCX.png)
|
On July 14 2016 10:58 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 10:56 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 14 2016 10:47 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:44 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:40 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2016 10:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 14 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Geee, I wonder why people haven't been discussing that study much? I don't know what you're accusing it of, can you elaborate your accusation? I'm sure you will figure it out on a long enough time line. Lol you don't even have the balls to make an actual baseless accusation as opposed to just implying that somehow the study is faulty from a baseless accusation. How did the collect the data they were analyzing? read it, you fucking illiterate, it's on the first page. How is that data base generated? How is that data collected? By collecting verifiable incidents? Think he's right about you critiquing from a place of ignorance? You mean crowd sourced data based on voluntary reporting with no transparent oversight or peer review? Even worse, they only collect what shows up on google.
Its almost like this data collection is deeply flawed and should not be used to attempt determine trends or anything. It is an interesting read despite those flaws.
On July 14 2016 11:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
i mean he's not the one who posted the harvard study after it had been discussed for 10+ pages
i did a quick scrub on the dataset. it seems like an ambitious project, and i would even say its a worthy one. however the data quality is pretty shitty because the collection method has some problems even though there's a rudimentary protocol. it's also very incomplete. out of about 2100 entries, 800+ list ethnicity as unknown. heck, 53 of them dont have a gender OR ethnicity listed.
Agreed. I wish they had better data. Sadly it isn't a requirement for police.
|
And this is where we end up. Incomplete data, with the side arguing against the experiences of millions of black and brown people unwilling to acknowledge why the data is always incomplete.
EDIT: Because if they did, it would undermine the whole reason for the damn discussion in the first place.
|
when WE deming said in god we trust all others must bring data, he neglected to mention that the data must be high quality
my idea would be to have a script that would crawl the archives of the major newspaper of cities above a certain population threshold with some sort of keyword search (guns, police, etc.) and use something like SMMRY to get a short summary which would then be processed to spit out the name, ethnicity, etc.
its hard. ideally we'd have the CDC do research on this, but their hands are fucking tied.
|
What bugs me the most about this discussion is, that the media totally ignores the elephant in the room:
Why cops act the way they act!
Why aren't there any reports out there of a black cops shooting an unarmed black man? It's not because they don't happen, it's because headlines like this get less views.
Why is nobody reporting, that 66 black people died in Chicago by the hand of other black people that day?
Bottom line is,this problem is the result of a much bigger problem and blaming racism won't solve the bigger issue here!
|
On July 14 2016 10:58 zulu_nation8 wrote:
this feels like conversing with the mentally challenged who can't put together a complete sentence for the other to respond to.
Anyways the study is interesting, WaPo has caught onto the conservative argument of comparing killing %s by race to crime %s by race, as opposed to race %s in general population. The study seems to say that there's still a significant racial bias when accounting for crime rates by race in individual counties.
I think this particular conclusion of the study could be explained by the fact that the stereotypes of blacks being more likely to commit crimes operates at a national level independent of if the blacks within a particular county are not typical of that national trend. Maybe I'm wrong though - at the very least it's an interesting statistic to take into account in the grand scheme of things.
The alternative conclusion seems to be 'since in certain counties with no crime differential between whites and blacks, that the shooting differential still exists is indicative of a systematic problem indicative of widespread racism in the police force against blacks, even when they aren't committing disproportionate crimes to whites at the local county level.'
It just doesn't take into account how the national statistics and cultural stereotypes affect populations locally, even if those local populations don't necessarily follow the national trend.
Regardless of the root cause of this phenomena, we can both agree that it's still a problem.
|
China26351 Posts
you guys are welcome to collect your own data, cross-reference with other databases, or even...make an argument on how the data's flaws would impact the study's results, but lol like anyone would actually do that instead of just talking shit right?
like lolol
|
On July 14 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
And this is where we end up. Incomplete data, with the side arguing against the experiences of millions of black and brown people unwilling to acknowledge why the data is always incomplete.
EDIT: Because if they did, it would undermine the whole reason for the damn discussion in the first place.
And currently several states are trying to push through laws that prevent the public from seeing video from body cameras. There is even talk of making it illegal to post videos of police making arrests to social media. Shocking the states pushing for this are in the South.
http://whnt.com/2016/07/13/new-north-carolina-law-limits-release-of-dashboard-or-police-body-camera-footage/
On July 14 2016 11:07 zulu_nation8 wrote:
you guys are welcome to collect your own data, cross-reference with other databases, or even...make an argument on how the data's flaws would impact the study's results, but lol like anyone would actually do that instead of just talking shit right?
like lolol
I find it amusing that you want to post data and talk about it, but the discussion of its accuracy and quality is off limits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
