Baton Rouge, LA multiple officers shot

[Terralthra]

How about we wait to see if the shooting in Baton Rouge was actually connected to said protestors, or even had a race-based motive, before we leap to conclusions?

The murderer having a YouTube channel where he calls for the deaths of "crackers " isn't sufficient?

When I posted that, the YouTube channel hadn't been found yet. The shooter had barely been identified and the last statement from the police was that the shooting was not believed to be race-related. Obviously my opinion changes as more information becomes available?

[Crown]

Especially when the frustrations of the delusional supposed oppressed kill those within law enforcement seeking honorable service ... when they kill men like Sgt. Montrell Jackson.

"Delusional supposed"... Did I not just post a link to peer-reviewed scientific evidence that US police are, on average, three and a half times more likely to shoot an unarmed black person than an unarmed white one? You may not like these people's methods but don't you tell me they don't have a number of totally valid reasons to be pissed off.

I'm pretty sure the numbers also show that it's black and hispanic police officers who are far more likely to shoot a black person rather than a white police officer (which is troubling for a few reasons) doesn't it?

Regardless the point remains that BLM to this day organises protests where they demonstrate "hands up don't shoot". We all know where that meme came from, and we all know that the coroners report/justice department exposed it as a lie and yet they continue to use it. If that's not delusional, then please provide a more accurate label.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Especially when the frustrations of the delusional supposed oppressed kill those within law enforcement seeking honorable service ... when they kill men like Sgt. Montrell Jackson.

"Delusional supposed"... Did I not just post a link to peer-reviewed scientific evidence that US police are, on average, three and a half times more likely to shoot an unarmed black person than an unarmed white one? You may not like these people's methods but don't you tell me they don't have a number of totally valid reasons to be pissed off.

I'm pretty sure the numbers also show that it's black and hispanic police officers who are far more likely to shoot a black person rather than a white police officer (which is troubling for a few reasons) doesn't it?

Regardless the point remains that BLM to this day organises protests where they demonstrate "hands up don't shoot". We all know where that meme came from, and we all know that the coroners report/justice department exposed it as a lie and yet they continue to use it. If that's not delusional, then please provide a more accurate label.

For something to be a lie, it has to be intentional. You are also ignoring the fact that social groups have inertia in the signals they use.

Enough unarmed black people have been shot by police when they were completely innocent of any wrongdoing that the origin of that particular form of protest-related communication is still applicable.

[Ziggy Stardust]

"Delusional supposed"... Did I not just post a link to peer-reviewed scientific evidence that US police are, on average, three and a half times more likely to shoot an unarmed black person than an unarmed white one? You may not like these people's methods but don't you tell me they don't have a number of totally valid reasons to be pissed off.

That justifies murder?

Don't be daft. It takes an absolutely minimal degree of reading comprehension to understand that he didn't say that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

As was pointed out when it was brought up before its a BS study. For one is does not control for vast disparity in criminality between blacks and everyone else. Second, it's conclusion is irrelevent. Being unarmed /= shouldn't be shot at.

The only valid use of lethal force is one to prevent imminent physical danger to someone present. So yes, while being unarmed =/= an inherently invalid use of lethal force, it sure as hell should raise a red flag as generally, someone unarmed is far less likely to be a clear and unavoidable danger to others.

Plus, the increased criminality of blacks is fucking irrelevant.

The study in question dealt in "if police contact is assumed, what are the odds that unarmed people will be shot" so these are people already under suspicion or some other investigatory or public order issue at minimum. Any difference in criminality between races is largely accounted for by the fact that the response variable in question is per-capita-per-contact.

Plus, the baseline stats regarding black criminality are highly likely to be somewhat biased anyway, depending on how much we can generalize the DoJs findings in Ferguson.

Even if that is accounted for how do they account for behaviors that can get an unarmed person justifiably shot? Let me put it this way...if you act like you have a gun and/or make statements that you have one and close distance with officers then you can justifiably be shot.

[Zaune]

Even if that is accounted for how do they account for behaviors that can get an unarmed person justifiably shot? Let me put it this way...if you act like you have a gun and/or make statements that you have one and close distance with officers then you can justifiably be shot.

Good question. I suppose you'd have to count any case where the officers involved testified that was what happened but no other witnesses were available as a justified shooting, which is undoubtedly letting a lot of unjustified ones through. Though to be scrupulously fair I bet there's at least some cases where the officers claimed the victim acted like he was armed but his gangbanger buddies all testified that he didn't and the defence counsel didn't notice they all agreed on a few too many details.

And if we really wanted to go down the rabbit-hole we could talk about the old Flying Squad trick of keeping a BB gun in the car to plant on someone in case you shot them 'accidentally', but that's moving into conspiracy-theorist territory. Besides, what can be proved looks bad enough.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The only valid use of lethal force is one to prevent imminent physical danger to someone present. So yes, while being unarmed =/= an inherently invalid use of lethal force, it sure as hell should raise a red flag as generally, someone unarmed is far less likely to be a clear and unavoidable danger to others.

Plus, the increased criminality of blacks is fucking irrelevant.

The study in question dealt in "if police contact is assumed, what are the odds that unarmed people will be shot" so these are people already under suspicion or some other investigatory or public order issue at minimum. Any difference in criminality between races is largely accounted for by the fact that the response variable in question is per-capita-per-contact.

Plus, the baseline stats regarding black criminality are highly likely to be somewhat biased anyway, depending on how much we can generalize the DoJs findings in Ferguson.

Even if that is accounted for how do they account for behaviors that can get an unarmed person justifiably shot? Let me put it this way...if you act like you have a gun and/or make statements that you have one and close distance with officers then you can justifiably be shot.

It cant. On the other hand, I somewhat doubt it accounts for a 2-3x average greater likelihood of being shot. 20x in some areas.

[Crown]

I'm pretty sure the numbers also show that it's black and hispanic police officers who are far more likely to shoot a black person rather than a white police officer (which is troubling for a few reasons) doesn't it?

Regardless the point remains that BLM to this day organises protests where they demonstrate "hands up don't shoot". We all know where that meme came from, and we all know that the coroners report/justice department exposed it as a lie and yet they continue to use it. If that's not delusional, then please provide a more accurate label.

For something to be a lie, it has to be intentional.

Well I'd argue that the witness who appeared on CNN and flat out said that Michael Brown was killed while his hands up was intentionally lying, but that's immaterial. We're discussing delusion(al); "having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions". The belief that Michael Brown was killed with his hands up surrendering is false.

You are also ignoring the fact that social groups have inertia in the signals they use.

That's a fair argument but if I can instantly mock Tea Party morons who protest with signs reading "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare" then I can do the same to the BLM morons who still think Michael Brown died surrendering one year after the Department of Justice report clearly stated the opposite.

Enough unarmed black people have been shot by police when they were completely innocent of any wrongdoing that the origin of that particular form of protest-related communication is still applicable.

Define 'enough unarmed black people' and 'completely innocent' and then give me the figures for 'enough unarmed white people' who also satisfy the 'completely innocent' criteria.

[Crown]

Enough unarmed black people have been shot by police when they were completely innocent of any wrongdoing that the origin of that particular form of protest-related communication is still applicable.

Define 'enough unarmed black people' and 'completely innocent' and then give me the figures for 'enough unarmed white people' who also satisfy the 'completely innocent' criteria.

Actually, don't do that. I can already see where it's going to go and what a waste of time. In essence I agree with you; innocents are dying when they interact with the police and if it's even one it's one too many (I am after all staunchly opposed to the death penalty and that is one of the many reasons why), but the difference is that you see it as a systemic 'war' on black people. I see it as a by product of the increased interaction black people have with law enforcement (due to their disproportional representation in criminal activity), and while I'm on your side in wanting that number to go down, I don't buy into the narrative presented as to why it's as high as it is.

[Broomstick]

I'm pretty sure the numbers also show that it's black and hispanic police officers who are far more likely to shoot a black person rather than a white police officer (which is troubling for a few reasons) doesn't it?

You have to account for area demographics. Cops are more likely to be black or hispanic in heavily urban areas (rural America is still overwhelmingly majority white) which is also where shootings of any sort are more likely to occur.

A more accurate comparison is whether white officers are more/less likely to shoot minorities than minority race officers in the same environment. Don't compare all white cops across the nation because you'll be looking at areas where minorities are rare to nonexistent, either in the ranks of police or the rank of potential victims. Compare cops within, say, Chicago or LA or New York or Detroit or Atlanta or Dallas, otherwise your data is going to be skewed.

[General Zod]

Enough unarmed black people have been shot by police when they were completely innocent of any wrongdoing that the origin of that particular form of protest-related communication is still applicable.

Define 'enough unarmed black people' and 'completely innocent' and then give me the figures for 'enough unarmed white people' who also satisfy the 'completely innocent' criteria.

Actually, don't do that. I can already see where it's going to go and what a waste of time. In essence I agree with you; innocents are dying when they interact with the police and if it's even one it's one too many (I am after all staunchly opposed to the death penalty and that is one of the many reasons why), but the difference is that you see it as a systemic 'war' on black people. I see it as a by product of the increased interaction black people have with law enforcement (due to their disproportional representation in criminal activity), and while I'm on your side in wanting that number to go down, I don't buy into the narrative presented as to why it's as high as it is.

Do you think this would have happened to a white guy?

[Crown]

Actually, don't do that. I can already see where it's going to go and what a waste of time. In essence I agree with you; innocents are dying when they interact with the police and if it's even one it's one too many (I am after all staunchly opposed to the death penalty and that is one of the many reasons why), but the difference is that you see it as a systemic 'war' on black people. I see it as a by product of the increased interaction black people have with law enforcement (due to their disproportional representation in criminal activity), and while I'm on your side in wanting that number to go down, I don't buy into the narrative presented as to why it's as high as it is.

Do you think this would have happened to a white guy?

Err.... Yes.

You understand that Police shoot unarmed white people in America as well right?

[General Zod]

Actually, don't do that. I can already see where it's going to go and what a waste of time. In essence I agree with you; innocents are dying when they interact with the police and if it's even one it's one too many (I am after all staunchly opposed to the death penalty and that is one of the many reasons why), but the difference is that you see it as a systemic 'war' on black people. I see it as a by product of the increased interaction black people have with law enforcement (due to their disproportional representation in criminal activity), and while I'm on your side in wanting that number to go down, I don't buy into the narrative presented as to why it's as high as it is.

Do you think this would have happened to a white guy?

Err.... Yes.

You understand that Police shoot unarmed white people in America as well right?

While they're lying down in a prone and surrendering position? The point is that while the police shoot white people too, as a per capita there's simply a lot more white people. If the ratio was consistently applied black shootings wouldn't be such a high percentage of the total population.

[Esquire]

That's statistically questionable; even if blacks weren't disproportionately involved in violent crime (the type most likely to get you justifiably shot), at least one major study found that police actually don't shoot blacks more than whites per capita. Other sorts of abuse, yes, but not fatal ones.

[General Zod]

That's statistically questionable; even if blacks weren't disproportionately involved in violent crime (the type most likely to get you justifiably shot), at least one major study found that police actually don't shoot blacks more than whites per capita. Other sorts of abuse, yes, but not fatal ones.

How much of that study did you read?

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.

[Esquire]

All of it. Just because a thing is possible doesn't mean it's true; if the authors thought any of those were genuinely-extant problems they'd have been in the Conclusions section and not in the potential-limitations part of the Introduction. This is far and away the most rigorous study on the subject I've come across, and the fact that its conclusions contradict the general narrative is a reason for further research, not an invitation to try and have it dismissed. The postmodernists haven't won yet.

Or: it is technically possible that the police forces sampled only provided data because they knew they were in the clear... But how many PDs to you know who employ high-calibre statisticians?

[General Zod]

I'd say it's hardly comprehensive research when the only police departments who contributed data are the ones with squeaky cleanish images.

[Esquire]

So prove the others aren't squeaky-clean. You're begging the question here; it's equally possible that all or most departments are like these ones. I'm not arguing they actually are, I'm saying that without adequate data simply asserting so isn't useful.

[General Zod]

So prove the others aren't squeaky-clean. You're begging the question here; it's equally possible that all or most departments are like these ones. I'm not arguing they actually are, I'm saying that without adequate data simply asserting so isn't useful.

And I'm saying you don't have adequate data.

[Esquire]

So a paper including data from NYC, LA, Austin, Dallas, Houston, six Florida county police departments, and a nationally-representative population sample, all totaling well over five million observations isn't at least enough to prompt some more thorough research? Because that's all I'm saying; there is reason to suspect that the generally-accepted narrative may not be completely accurate. Treat it as an imperfect pilot study if it makes you happier - as you point out, the authors acknowledge the limitations in their own data - but that doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong; it just means we need more data to test the hypothesis further.

[SAMAS]

Guys, the issue isn't some "war on black people" by corrupt/racist Police, but rather the crushing indifference police departments have to the incidents that do happen.

Remember Rodney King? He was caught on camera getting beaten severely by a bunch of officers back in the early 90's. It wasn't the attack that triggered the riots in LA later that year, but rather the aquittals of said officers. The conduct of police departments who aquit officers after half-assed investigations, or lie under oath to get their fellow officers off, or stand by and let this shit happen demean tbthee lives lost or otherwise affected. As if their lives didn't matter. As if they didn't warrant justice.

To paraphrase the Boondocks; not every black person shot by police is, was, or will be Nelson Mandela. But sometimes they are. Sometimes they're Tamir Rice. Sometimes they're Eric Garner. Sometimes They're Philando Castille. Or Freddie Gray. And when some dies unwarranted by police hands, or in police custody, we shouldn't have to march in the goddamn street just to get a proper investigation.

[madd0ct0r]

So a paper including data from NYC, LA, Austin, Dallas, Houston, six Florida county police departments, and a nationally-representative population sample, all totaling well over five million observations isn't at least enough to prompt some more thorough research? Because that's all I'm saying; there is reason to suspect that the generally-accepted narrative may not be completely accurate. Treat it as an imperfect pilot study if it makes you happier - as you point out, the authors acknowledge the limitations in their own data - but that doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong; it just means we need more data to test the hypothesis further.

Esquire - Are you intentionally implying this paper is the definitive or only one on the subject? Or was it the first thing you found on google so you stopped searching?

[Esquire]

Did you actually read the post you quoted? I thought I made it fairly clear that I said nothing of the sort. I'm quite familiar with the existing body of research; this is a fairly high-quality study yielding unexpected results, which in my book means we need more research, not to ignore the heretical finding.

[madd0ct0r]

Your post did not mention the previous dozens of papers, it disscussed only the single recent paper that shows the 'generally accepted narrative is wrong'.
It calls for "some more thorough research" and suggests "treat it as an imperfect pilot study" and "we need more data to test the hypothesis further".

---
Now, from where im sitting, 'the generally accepted narrative' in america is that blacks are shot more becuase they are more likely to be criminals, and the poor are poor because they are lazy ect. Its a narrative that lets the comfortable feel good about themselves. There is a reason the paper you trumpet recieved far more press than the other dozen papers on the same topic.
Its a piece of evidence that justifies someone's cognitive dissonasance, giving them that little hit of endorphins for successfully reducing mental dissonasance. You fiund it and your brain went ah! Activated the "makes sense stopping rule" and returned you to your previous posistion convinced you had examined all the evidence fairly.

Im just asking you to ask yourself if that is true, because your wording suggested otherwise.

[Esquire]

Your post did not mention the previous dozens of papers, it disscussed only the single recent paper that shows the 'generally accepted narrative is wrong'.
It calls for "some more thorough research" and suggests "treat it as an imperfect pilot study" and "we need more data to test the hypothesis further".

Why is your reaction to 'this high-quality study disagrees with my opinion' to denounce it as heretical instead of either showing what makes it a bad study or - purely as a suggestion - asking why it disagrees and what impacts that might have? I'm going to quote myself from the first page, on the 21st:

So prove the other [police departments] aren't squeaky-clean. You're begging the question here; it's equally possible that all or most departments are like [the ones in the study]. I'm not arguing they actually are, I'm saying that without adequate data simply asserting so isn't useful.

Now, from where im sitting, 'the generally accepted narrative' in america is that blacks are shot more becuase they are more likely to be criminals, and the poor are poor because they are lazy ect. Its a narrative that lets the comfortable feel good about themselves. There is a reason the paper you trumpet recieved far more press than the other dozen papers on the same topic.
Its a piece of evidence that justifies someone's cognitive dissonasance, giving them that little hit of endorphins for successfully reducing mental dissonasance. You fiund it and your brain went ah! Activated the "makes sense stopping rule" and returned you to your previous posistion convinced you had examined all the evidence fairly.

My position is, and always has been, that data are always better than subjective impressions for policymaking. When high-quality data (which this study provides, despite some acknowledged limitations that again suggest further research is needed) disagree with impressions, I am inclined to want to find out why.

The problem of the utter inadequacy of science reporting in this country is a separate one, which I'm also happy to talk about if you like. It's not particularly relevant to our discussion, and even though I'm sure you're right about why a contradictory paper gets more press than a confirmatory one that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the paper in question.

Im just asking you to ask yourself if that is true, because your wording suggested otherwise.

MI'm going to quote myself from the first page, on the 21st:

So prove the others aren't squeaky-clean. You're begging the question here; it's equally possible that all or most departments are like these ones. I'm not arguing they actually are, I'm saying that without adequate data simply asserting so isn't useful.

, remind me what your background is again? I'll cheerfully admit that I think the study under discussion is fairly compelling... but that's because it's easily the most rigorous one on the subject that I've come across in my work as a public health statistician, and if I said anything more definitive than 'these results are interesting and suggest we ought to look into the problem futher,' I invite you to show me where so that I can correct myself.