Much better reference than some white-washed study..

... have.

Bringing up the culture of the person coming to the conclusion is a false credibilty by proxy

I thought the fact that he holds a chair at the W. E.DuBois institute would be a tipoff but I guess not. He said himself in the paper that he was quite surprised at the result, and likewise I am sure he is fully aware of the deficiencies in reporting deaths in custody etc. that might skew this result.

You are wrong to dismiss the study without any substantive rebuttal.

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

accepted as conclusive. But I see how many in White America are running away with this report--anything to prove that we black people deserve to be shot and killed and that racism and racial bias are merely a figments of our imagination.

Fuck outta here!

It's all about agenda.

Wonder who paid for it?

... is not data.

Results didn't align with your expectations so it must be 'white washed'?

But, is the defense to doing bad things to people of color is that they also do bad things to white people?

Well, I know I'm sold!

because he is a person of color.

does?
What's the point?
Why is it necessary that blacks be shot more than white?
I don't see how that matters they shouldn't be shooting white people, black people, Chinese people, Native Americans, Jewish people, gay people without just cause.

Why is it so important that blacks be their largest group of victims?

Why you do you suppose the OP posted a huge picture of Mr. Fryer in reply to my post, as though his photo alone disproved my post?

It's quite interesting to me that you find nothing wrong with the posting of the photo as a reply to me. But you're all over my comment on posting a photo as a rebuttal with imagination and accusation:

and its painfully obvious in the context of the conversation.
The picture was posted because peopple either directly say "8. Black people experience...
Much better reference than some white-washed study.. "
or they infer ulterior motives.



Answer the question
Why is it so important thst blacks are seen as having been more victimized than whites by police?

You've falsely accused me of one thing after another based on nothing but what you imagine, and are now accusing me of having lied about my what my own post means. We're done.

Say what you wish , its obvious to me

Still refuse to answer the question, i noticed.
Why?

He's limited by the information available to him. He has data from Houston and New York, but that data isn't likely to be representative of other areas in the US, particularly smaller cities and less diverse cities. Also, the study looks into whether killings are racially biased *after someone is pulled over* but doesn't look into whether there is bias in why people are pulled over in the first place. A lot of the issue people have is that black people get pulled over more often and for less serious reasons. If black people are pulled over more often, that makes a big difference in how often they'll get killed.

He acknowledges these limitations: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/upshot/roland-fryer-answers-reader-questions-about-his-police-force-study.html?_r=0

Let us know when you have an objection to his substantive points as opposed to empty rhetoric.

I am also surprised by the outcome of this study but his methodology seems excellent and he points to numerous other problems. An honest scholar doe snot hide from an unexpected result, but puts trust in the investigative method. If you think it's deficient, say where.

and they're forcing this poor organization to lie.

Nice try tho.

Its a quote from the study. Which I might add is not my study. I thought it would be an interesting discussion.

Thus proving a racial bias. Whether said bias is a conscious act or not remains to be seen.

Also a line from the study.

You need to read it more carefully if you drew that conclusion.

Yet, the results indicate that
they are significantly more rare for whites than blacks. In the raw data, blacks are 21.3 percent
more likely to be involved in an interaction with police in which at least a weapon is drawn than
whites and the difference is statistically significant.

Weird.

It says that police are more likely to draw a gun on a black suspect. But drawing a gun on someone is not the same as shooting them (although it is needlessly intimidating and indicative of bias). The third paragraph goes on to distinguish between the bias that the author did find and the surprising lack of bias in actual shootings. The conclusion is that while a police officer is more likely to draw a gun on a black suspect, s/he is not more likely to pull a trigger on one race than another; or put another way, while a police officer is more likely to draw a gun on a black suspect, s/he is also more likely to put it away unfired.

I'm not trying to have a go at you but you are just not reading it carefully enough. It simply does not say what you claimed it did.

If police are more likely to draw a gun on a black suspect, that still can suggest bias.

I don't know who you think you're arguing with because I made that very point myself.

that black people are shot the most?
If his study shows otherwise it shows otherwise regardless of what you want to believe....so the question is, why do you want to believe that?

when it does!

... things not right about this study based off the data and the anomalous areas studied

to throw out after a couple more POC are executed by cops to try & show they aren't really being executed at a higher rate. However, when a white person can draw a weapon on cops after firing on others & still live while a black man can't even reach for his ID without having several rounds into him.... Actions speak louder.

... blaring defects and small sample size.

it would be obvious.

just as thrilled with this study and creaming their pants over it, even though the researcher himself admits that the research may be flawed and inconclusive.

dangerous bc they'll look us in the face & say they're on our side but turn around & fuck us. At least we know republicans hate us. Look up thread where they pull out the old "but the researcher is black" bullshit. So is Ben Carson & Herman Cain, doesn't mean I trust a damn thing they say.

It says non-lethal force is disproportionately used against non-whites but lethal force is not. (Not saying that the study is accurate, but that is what the study and headline both say.)

but it's nice to see something serious posted about this timely issue.

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 04:04 PM - Edit history (2)

Seems these kind of reports crop up after the latest police murders of black people.

And we all know multiple results can be reached from small sample research studies.

A shrew manipulator can make a study say whatever who paid for it wants.

Imo, it's not credible that guns are drawn by police more on black people but fired at them less.

How about we ask the black guy in Minnesota about that?

Oh wait, we can't. He's dead.

The cop drew his gun an pumped four bullets into him as he reached for his ID and carry permit.

When when exactly could a report like this pop up and not be after the latest police murders of black people?

And you can't reject the conclusions of a study just because some studies are not to be trusted.

video of him dying in the car after having 4 bullets pumped into his body by a scared-of-his-own-shadow, overreacting, trigger-happy cop, it's very clear what happened in Minnesota.

The Michael Brown case looked like murder at first, but once all the evidence was in, it didn't look that way anymore.

and believing.

The Michael Brown case was murder. Do you actually believe that Brown turned and kept charging into live bullets like the murdering cop said, inferring that Brown was a super human demon. Yet Brown had a bullet in the top of his head. How could that happen if he was charging?

Maybe someone stood over him and pumped a bullet into his dying body as he lay on the ground.

Think, man.

And why was a woman, known to be lying, allowed to testify, in favor of the killer cop, before the grand jury?

Why? Because the DA did what is typical of too many in the criminal justice system — protected a killer cop.

They'll try the same thing in Minnesota but it's less likely to work because of the live stream video.

That is my source, not any news media, right wing or otherwise. That report thoroughly assessed the evidence and found that it supported the conclusion that the officer acted in self defense and did not act unlawfully.

Brown was unarmed, or is that not important to cop apologists?

And the lying woman whose testimony was allowed by the crooked DA?

It was murder.

You are talking about the proceedings of the grand jury, and I agree that they were extremely messed up. That prosecutor should be disbarred for allowing someone's testimony to be heard even though he knew it was false.

Brown's being disarmed doesn't men that he was murdered. Again, you should read the DOJ report. It assesses the physical evidence including the entry points of the wounds as well as the witness testimony. I am not saying that the report is perfect or that it is immune to any criticism. But it is very professional and your conclusions are not nearly as well-informed.

Brown wasn't disarmed as you say. He was unarmed.

You can keep on believing that someone, unarmed, would walk into repeated live fire if you want, like he was some superhuman demon — as implied by the cop.

The sensible ones of us will not fall for that no matter how many times that lie is told.

It was murder, just like so many other murders committed against unarmed black men by racist cops.

BTW, you're playing the cop apologist role to a T.

My conclusions are those of the DOJ report. So you must think that the authors od the DOJ report are just "cop apologists" and not "sensible" like you? I think that view is laughable.

black men, that you think the one in Ferguson was somehow different.

Keep going with that. Seems to make you feel better.

other than the crooked DA of course.

Maybe you should send them your thoughts.

That's the huge elephant in the room that you keep trying to ignore, why the cop is not in jail.

But I am not basing my conclusions about the killing of Brown on the failure of the grand jury to indict. I am basing my conclusions on the DOJ report. Get it?

And that DOJ report carefully assesses all of the witness testimony and the physical evidence and on that basis arrives at the conclusion that the total evidence favors the conclusion that Brown was not murdered. You claim he was, but unlike the DOJ investigators, you obviously haven't carefully assessed the evidence.

side.

will ignore any troublesome facts that don't fit into their emotion based perception of how they think things should be.

But thats not what the stidy says and if ot did Id accept the results unless there's a real reason to refute them and thats not what people in this thread are doing
They just simply dont like the results and ate dismissing them


"...still a man here's what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..." paul simon

And like the author, the particular finding that there is no inherent racial bias when it comes to cops shooting blacks doesn't make sense if blacks are more likely to be harassed, stopped, physically abused and have guns drawn on them. Guns drawn but no shooting? It doesn't make sense. That's what people seem to take issue with.

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

"blacks are more likely to be harassed, stopped, physically abused and have guns drawn on them. Guns drawn but no shooting?"


it was a knee jerk .
No way response.

and maybe there are other factors you and the researcher haven't thought of yet.

and carry out the appropriate research methods until we get better explanations. I think the admission that the findings may be inconclusive is enough to suggest that the media outlets running with the results are being irresponsible. And those here who are championing the study because it makes them feel better about race relations are not contributing constructively to serious dialogue.

more often. Try asking the two blacks guys from Baton Rouge and Minnesota about that?

Or the one from New York last week also. Yes, one happened in New York too but it went under reported because of all the other shooting last week.

There have been several threads here on the study, and at least one on an early debunking.

Not that you're doing this, Separation. But people are seizing on this as either "hah, who's wrong now, libtard!" or "this must be wrong and the researcher is a disgrace!" not "given this specific set of data, here's what I found."

The point about use of force against blacks and Hispanics is getting underplayed, for once thing. I read someone's first look at it that also got into the weeds of exactly what data was being used in this paper, but some of it went over my head.

I even pointed out that there is data showing Latinos and Blacks are at a higher risk of non lethal force, i.e being slapped, maced, cuffed wtc. I never once said one and done case closed.

It's the first sentence after the title, I said you weren't doing that. The rest of the reply is about how I'd seen other people on the internet (mostly twitter) reacting to it. I'm sorry if that second part was less than clear.

It's also a brilliant example of lying with statistics. While blacks are 23.8% less likely than whites to be shot by the cops, they're also about 10% of the population, something that should figure in here, making the per capita likelihood far, far higher than for whites.

I haven't read the rest of it. I don't particularly want to. The whole system is racially biased and justified by Nixon's War on Drugs, something that has gotten us worse criminals, worse violence, worse policing, and MORE DRUGS.

We can fold up this study and stick it between the pages of "The Bell Curve," one place it would feel at home.

possibly but not certainly

by me posting a study on this forum I was hoping that some would read the study instead of just yelling "white wash, racist, bullshit" before reading the study.

The man (a black man) who did the study points out that he was surprised by its findings. He didnt downplay the racial inconsistencies of the non lethal force used on minorities, matter of fact he said it needed to be addressed.

What you and I agree on is this war on Crime/Drugs perpetuated by Nixon and being fueled even further by for profit systems is in my opinion a Crime against humanity (which have been supported sadly by Democrats in power). I saw a crime against humanity because there are children that are brought up in this system never knowing their father or mother, and statistically more apt to be killed, drug overdose, or put into the for profit system.

Individual blacks have a 23.8% less chance of being shot by police than do individual whites, in Houston. (That prepositional phrase is key; I suspect that isn't true elsewhere, if only because that needs to be true to make the article's averages work out.)

Note that's population size and proportion independent.

Houston also isn't 10% black. It's a bit under 49% white, around 25% black, and with maybe 8% Asian and most of the rest racially mixed. Latinos are about 40% of the population, but that's ethnic and not racial. Most of them are classed as "white."

Fryer has an excellent reputation as an economist and this is a well-written paper. You say yourself you haven't read it and don't want to, and that is basically a position of willful ignorance on your part. Your statistical argument would be laughable if it weren't so depressing. I suspect Dr Fryer understands the problem of discrimination vastly better than you ever will, but unlike you he did not allow his expectations to bias his observations.

Whites 63% of the pop
blacks 12% of the pop
hispanic 16% of the pop

So if u add blacks and hispanics up they don't even equal half of the population-so when they start throwing %s around and you look at the differences in population-that in itself is proof of the racism.

We don't know what controls were used. We don't know so very much about this research and that frustrates me when people take stats out of context. But there is no way that all other things being equal that we can compare stats by race if we don't consider the huge differences in size of population. Although my stats are old, we don't know the age of the numbers these gentleman worked with.

They are there at the link if you wish to read them.

Can we conclude that given that men are 50% of the pop but 94% of police shooting victims that there is massive sexism in police shootings?

We do know what controls were used. They are discussed in detail in the paper, to which you have a link in the OP. It took me only 2 minutes to verify the integrity of the datasets he's using, which have also been used in other well-received research. It is dishonest of you to pretend that he didn't show his work. Why would you do that?

I understand where the data comes from. That is not explaining what the controls are. i went back through and still am not sure what controls were used. Data is just raw numbers.

For example:

is stopped 10% of the time and people that represent 12% of the population are stopped 20% of the time. Then they are being stopped at double the rate of the majority. these numbers are not true and only a simplistic way to explain my point. That my friend is racism.

statistics.

After, and only after a thorough peer-review, it, as with all research, will be considered on its methodology and merits. Until then, it's a hypothesis.

... arrest and shootings (the arrest could be bias), 3. the conclusion that blacks have weapons drawn on us at a higher rate (a higher rate of drawing weapons wouldn't indicate a lower rate of shootings)

I hope I will do my best not to do anything that could cause him to shoot. (I hope peeing in my pants isn't a provocation...)

That could possibly account for the 'less shooting' against blacks, as supposed by the data set in this particular study-- (since more of them had guns pointed at them, perhaps those were more careful in their interaction with the police?--just a big "maybe&quot .

But, the initial impression of "more guns drawn on, but less shot" does seem like contradictory data.

This study is of course, only one set of supposed data. I would like to see more studies of this type in different geographical areas and nationwide, before one could come to any conclusions, same as one might do when judging the accuracy of polling.


However, the facts of individual cases of cops shooting African-Americans are horrific. I can't unsee the video of the cop shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back umpteen times... no matter what any study tries to tell me, there's a problem here.

... to see any more people shot at all.

But damn, I'm sure most blacks don't have cells phones are the only ones who are willing to whip them out when they see some sKrange shit going down.

I still think the bigger issue isn't cops that fuck up totally or just make mistakes, they're human too...

I think the bigger issue is the accountability isn't there... for instance, 2 of the body cams falling off at the same time during the BRLA shooting... OK.. 1 falling off ... maybe... 2 falling off... WHAT?!

That should no doubt raise some questions along with the other actions including confiscating the store owners video tape (which the BRPD still wont release) and letting everyone see that the cops followed the rules.

Yeah, I'd like to see a bigger study on this too

that claimed that redlining is a myh.

Thanks for that brilliant insight.

The point is that like anyone else, it's possible for scholars to occassionally have biases that influence their analyses.

And since there's a link to the paper in the OP where you can evaluate the author's claims directly, I think it's uncool to just dismiss his opinion rather than point to the specific shortcomings in his study. Maybe I should just stay out of threads where academic subjects are being discussed but it really pisses me off that people on DU make all these reflexive objections without apparently even reading the thing they're criticizing.

I'd give the citation, but I don't remember the professor's name. Sometimes experts are wrong or biased. Embracing skepticism is one of the most healthy aspects of academic research.

I think we're on the same page generally but since you had direct access to the study I think you should have challenged it on its own merits instead of just saying 'sometimes experts are wrong.' That's fine if someone is making some hand-wavey claim that 'experts say xyz...' but when you have the actual paper and the detailed methodology available to you for study it's fallacious.

Sorry but I've heard 'experts are often wrong so there' argument so many times from global warming 'skeptics' and most recently in regard to the Brexit thing that I'm sick of it. It's an argument usually advanced by people who have the intellectual capability to analyse the argument but choose not to do so and resort to cheap shots instead.

The results are really different when you talk about the whole population, probably because they only arrest white people who are dangerous.

The office involved shooting data is just bad, for several reasons, many of which they list.

I find the non-lethal force data far more compelling because they are at least several different way they try to triangulate and incident. And here because they are not just using police created reports, they do find sig racial disparities.

It's a working paper, not a peer reviewed one. I wonder when this emerges in peer reviewed form, how different this paper will look.

He's using the best available data sets and he's up front about the limitations thereof. I think most the criticisms of this paper are massively unfair and ignorant. You'd think from the tenor of the commentary here that he was claiming there's no problem, which is far from being the case.

Sample bias.