Black GOP Senator Talks About Being Pulled Over By Police 7 Times In One Year

[*michaelsean*]

(07-15-2016, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not really.

Basically it proves that people who claim there is no racial bias by police are full of shit.

No kidding. Whitey is being hunted.

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2016, 09:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No kidding.  Whitey is being hunted.

Typical of you to respond without even reading the findings of the study.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-15-2016, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not really.

Basically it proves that people who claim there is no racial bias by police are full of shit.

I noticed the author offered a "theory" that "softer" methods of racism are used stopping short of lethal force.

Another theory, equally valid based on the evidence, is that blacks are less cooperative because of cultural biases.  15-20% difference makes a lot of sense in that regard, and actually fits all the facts better.

So, no.  The only proof is there's no racial bias in shootings.  Blacks are more likely to be "roughed up" when arrested, but without context that proves nothing. The "racist cop" doesn't want to shoot you, he just wants to push you around....doesn't pass the logical "smell test".

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2016, 11:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Typical of you to respond without even reading the findings of the study.

Fred should be nicknamed slut because he is too easy.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 04:52 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote:  Blacks are more likely to be "roughed up" when arrested, but without context that proves nothing.  

"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."

They examined 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015, coding police narratives to answer questions such as: How old was the suspect? How many police officers were at the scene? Were they mostly white? Was the officer at the scene for a robbery, violent activity, a traffic stop or something else? Was it nighttime? Did the officer shoot after being attacked or before a possible attack?


What context is missing?

(07-19-2016, 04:52 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Another theory, equally valid based on the evidence, is that blacks are less cooperative because of cultural biases.  15-20% difference makes a lot of sense in that regard, and actually fits all the facts better.

Not valid for people who actually read the study instead of just making racists assumptions.

"Even when the police said that civilians were compliant, blacks experienced more force."

(07-19-2016, 04:52 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote:  The "racist cop" doesn't want to shoot you, he just wants to push you around....doesn't pass the logical "smell test".

Yes it does.

".  .  .  the divide between lethal force — where he did not find racial disparities — and nonlethal force — where he did — might be related to costs. Officers face costs, legal and psychological, when they unnecessarily fire their guns. But excessive use of lesser force is rarely tracked or punished. “No officer has ever told me that putting their hands on inner-city youth is a life-changing event,” he said."

[THE Bigzoman]

(07-19-2016, 04:52 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I noticed the author offered a "theory" that "softer" methods of racism are used stopping short of lethal force.

Another theory, equally valid based on the evidence, is that blacks are less cooperative because of cultural biases.  15-20% difference makes a lot of sense in that regard, and actually fits all the facts better.

So, no.  The only proof is there's no racial bias in shootings.  Blacks are more likely to be "roughed up" when arrested, but without context that proves nothing.  The "racist cop" doesn't want to shoot you, he just wants to push you around....doesn't pass the logical "smell test".

This.

A discrepancy doesn't prove the discrepancy exists because of bias. It just proves a discrepancy exists.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-19-2016, 12:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not valid for people who actually read the study instead of just making racists assumptions.

Did you mean to say "read and understood" the study?

The differences are small in absolute terms, but statistically significant...although expressed as a % it's much more compelling (i.e. .02 vs. .03 is 50%).

But the bulk of the differences is "hands", related to being frisked, and cuffed.  We know police profile, and we know young black males are arrested for more crimes.   But as the basis for "more non-lethal uses of force", I wouldn't call that a "smoking gun". Look at the "Civilian Behavior" table - very little is significant, but across the board blacks are slighlty higher and taken as a whole might be statistically less cooperative, which could explain marginal differences below.

Check out the NY stop & frisk data. All but one (handcuffs) is statistically significant that the rates aren't equal, but aside from hands & frisked the numbers are equal to two decimals.  So when they say "20% more likely", they really mean 5.0% vs. 6.0%.

Going to the PPCS data (civilian reported), the results aren't terribly different.  One interesting stat of note - whites are 33% (self reported) more likely to be injured.  But that result is not statistically significant.  So police use excessive force disproportionately on blacks, but there's no increase of self-reported injuries?   And blacks PERCEIVE higher use of excessive force, but don't report more injuries?

[fredtoast]

(07-20-2016, 06:04 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: blacks are slighlty higher and taken as a whole might be statistically less cooperative, which could explain marginal differences below.

(07-19-2016, 12:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Even when the police said that civilians were compliant, blacks experienced more force."

[fredtoast]

(07-20-2016, 06:04 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Check out the NY stop & frisk data. All but one (handcuffs) is statistically significant that the rates aren't equal, but aside from hands & frisked the numbers are equal to two decimals.  So when they say "20% more likely", they really mean 5.0% vs. 6.0%.

Brilliant analysis.


"If you ignore the stuff that looks the worst the other stuff is only 20% different"

[JustWinBaby]

(07-20-2016, 09:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Brilliant analysis.


"If you ignore the stuff that looks the worst the other stuff is only 20% different"

I take it from this quote, and the one above, that you don't understand data or conclusions there from....Is that a fair statement, "counselor"?

[fredtoast]

(07-24-2016, 05:45 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I take it from this quote, and the one above, that you don't understand data or conclusions there from....Is that a fair statement, "counselor"?

No.  I understand exactly what the data says.

Your "analysis" consisteeed of eliminating the worst data and then showing that the other cases were "not that bad".

Instead of just casting aspersions perhaps you can tell me how I am wrong.