bondom34 wrote:I really missed the part where police were slaves for hundreds of years while police are actually in a profession to protect others while they're in danger.
Almost like they sign up for a dangerous job and people would rather them shoot black people.
Sorry but I've lost all respect for a few posters itt with this. You were banned elsewhere for being openly and wildly racist and its unacceptable.
Ardee, your bull is really starting to piss me off. Change your profile picture you **** disgrace, they wouldnt was a POS like you supporting him.
in the SAME GODDAMN ARTICLE
Is it also informative? According to the same data sources, the odds of a police officer being shot by a white man in 2015 were 112 times higher than the odds of an unarmed white man being shot by police, for whatever it’s worth. And it seems more relevant to current debates that twice as many unarmed Black men were killed by police in 2015 as police were killed by Black men. It also seems relevant that, as of 2018, the ratio had fallen to almost 1:1 amid what appears to have been broad decline in police shootings of unarmed people of all races — a sign that the Black Lives Matter protest movement that began after the (non-police) killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin in 2013 and took off after the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 may in fact have been achieving some of its aims even before this spring’s events.
Ardee are you literally brain dead? do you know how stupidly ludicrious it would be if the average man from an ethnic group from a police officer more than the average police officer died from someone from an ethnic group?
Lets clarify guys, he isnt saying the average police officer dies more in encounters with black males than black males die in encounters with police officers, which even then would be expected because if you put police officers and random people they encounter and arrest, considering the majority of crime in general isnt violent, you have a very small fraction of cases being justifiable shootings by the police officer anyway, but he is saying that, essentially
it is more likely for a police officer to be killed by someone, then it is for someone to be killed by a police officer. or essentially, that being a police officer increases your chances of getting killed
WHAT A SHOCKER!
Lets be clear guys, 99% of the studies Ardee attempts to point to, what they do is pretty much get the rates of police shootings by race and attempt to get controls put in, which in itself is a stupid task. typically they do so by crime rates, but IIRC one of the biggest studies that did this that a bunch of right wing media parrotted has since been retracted due to failings in the paper.
Lets take something like crime rates for example. Heres an extreme hypothetical example showing why doing controls like this are inadequate
Suppose there are two types of crime: speeding and murder. Suppose black people and white people commit crimes at the same rate: half of crime is speeding, half is murder.
Example 1: police discriminate against black people in prosecuting crime, but not in likehood to shoot. Suppose police shoot murderers 100% of the time, and speeders 0% of the time. Suppose police only go after white murderers and not white speeders, but they go after black murderers and black speeders. Because white speeders never enter the database as criminals, the data would show the police kills 50% of black criminals and 100% of white criminals. In reality, police kill 50% of black criminals and 50% of white criminals.
Example 2: police discriminate against black people in prosecuting crime and in shootings. Suppose now police are 20% more likely across the board to shoot black people: they shoot black speeders 20% of the time and black murderers 100% of the time, but never shoot white speeders and shoot white murderers 80% of the time. If police don't go after white speeders, the data would show they shoot black criminals 60% of the time and white criminals 80% of the time. In reality, police shoot 60% of black criminals and 40% of white criminals.
Because the crime data can be affected by discrimination, it can bias the statistics on police violence rates as a fraction of crime by race.
One way you could do this is look at neighborhoods where police are called by 911 and dispatched to (abstract of a working paper)
Perhaps most strikingly, we show that while white and black officers use gun force at similar rates in white and racially mixed neighborhoods, white officers are five times as likely to use gun force in predominantly black neighborhoods. Similarly, white officers increase use of any force much more than minority officers when dispatched to more minority neighborhoods. Consequently, difference-in-differences estimates from individual officer fixed effect models indicate black (Hispanic) civilians are 30 - 60 (75 - 120) percent more likely to experience any use of force, and five times as likely to experience gun use of force, compared to if white officers scaled up force similarly to minority officers.
People arent saying that Cops kill random innocent black people walking by, they are saying that, given two situations where theres a white person and theres a black person, theres an implicit bias to shoot the black person for doing less than the white person
And no, looking up violent crime doesnt solve this either. Its semantics. Me having a baseball bat in my car would make me an armed victim, punching a police officer and running away without being a threat, having a knife in your car even though you arent running twards it, would mean you assaulted him and are armed.
Beyond internal corruption in the police force that undoubtedly exists effecting the overall numbers
Even with these confounding variables that will bias the data towards Ardees side, the predominant conclusion in papers that support Ardee's point is at most, Lethal shootings might be unracially biased, but every other violent interaction is (from roland G fryers paper, probably the most popular one supporting Ardees viewpoint). Keep in mind, it has been retracted for flaws in that inadequicies in the paper biased it towards Ardees position. Not to mention that a majority of officers dont report non-lethal force data, further increasing the bias towards Ardees position. (this would mean Jacob blakes shooting, if he becomes paralyzed for life, wouldnt even be registered)
Its also not as if all studies are in agreement of this issue. random googling for 10 minutes
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3660&context=faculty_scholarshiphttps://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/study-supports-suspicion-that-police-are-more-likely-to-use-force-on-blacks.html (Paywall but conclusions are obvious)
A Stanford study of police practices in Oakland, California, found that officers were disproportionally handcuffing blacks. “Regardless of the area of the city, disproportionate treatment by race was similar and the raw totals were stunning,” according to a Washington Post summary of the findings. The Post continues: “2,890 African Americans handcuffed but not arrested in a 13-month period, while only 193 whites were cuffed. When Oakland officers pulled over a vehicle but didn’t arrest anyone, 72 white people were handcuffed, while 1,466 African Americans were restrained.” The researchers also found significant differences in the way officers spoke to African Americans: “Using only the words an officer uses during a traffic stop, we can predict whether that [officer] is talking to a black person or a white person” with 66 percent accuracy.
A 2015 analysis by The New York Times found that in Greensboro, North Carolina, police officers “used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists—even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white.” That pattern held true for police departments in four states. In Greensboro, “officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason. And they were more likely to use force if the driver was black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance.”
An independent analysis of Washington Post data on police killings found that, “when factoring in threat level, black Americans who are fatally shot by police are, in fact, less likely to be posing an imminent lethal threat to the officers at the moment they are killed than white Americans fatally shot by police.” According to one of the report’s authors, “The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black. . . . Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.
A study by a University of California, Davis professor found “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.” Additionally, the analysis found that “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.”
The data does show Non-lethal force, Judicially, etc etc is pretty much in agreement theres an anti police bias. (judicially was the largest one I recall)
Data of lethal force is at the very most not in consensus at all, Despite the fact that many confounding variables exist that would bias results towards Ardees position.
The biggest study supporting his position has been retracted, and while other studys may post similar results a majority have the same confounding variables and criticisms that one did (A biased data set at the very least) while more recent studies like the Columbia one have concluded the difference is 2x (which is significant) even though their data is also based off of a biased data set
So no, data doesnt clearly support your argument. At the VERY most, it says the judicial/police system discriminates in pretty much everything, and ONLY when it comes to lethal shootings there MAY be a chance that the difference isnt as blatant as in other level sof disrcimination, WHEN USING A BIASED DATA SET (and most recent studies support the idea that there IS a bias
