Another shooting, more riots.

[deleted500612]

View attachment 321916

A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings at the County-Level in the United States, 2011–2014

A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data presented in the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) in order to investigate the extent of racial bias in the shooting of American civilians by police officers in recent years. In contrast to previous work that...

journals.plos.org

For context, we would need to know the rate of involvement in violent crime of each respective demographic otherwise that number means nothing. If you point out that George gets 3x more speeding tickets than Chris but completely ignore/leave out the fact that he also speeds 3x more often than Chris... is that really an honest argument?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pgg]

We cannot keep using the excuse that police aren’t paid well and they have a dangerous job as to why the system can’t change.

That's always been a lame excuse.

19 year old Marine lance corporals pulling duty in Al Qaim or Kandahar can somehow abide by pretty strict ROE. Lower pay, more dangerous, actual war vs fictitious War On Thing, and yet their ability to assess threats and discourage aggression without opening fire is excellent.

I don't know why the difference in capability is so stark, but I have to believe it's got something to do with how they're led and a difference in attitude regarding the risk each gun-slinging person has been told they "should" accept. We constantly hear cops defend aggressive action - whether lethal or not - by saying their #1 priority is to go home to their families at night. That is, by definition, not putting public safety ahead of their own, which Once Upon A Time was just implicitly understood about the police and their job to serve and protect.

One of the reason we respect and honor what NY firefighters did on 9/11 so much is because so many of them willingly went into those buildings knowing they might die, some had to know they would probably die. But they went in anyway hoping they'd be able to rescue the citizens they serve and protect.

Somehow we've moved on from a society where military, fire, and police all understood that their core reason to exist was to absorb risk and danger to protect others, to one in which the police force as a whole just doesn't get it any more.

 

[gasdoc77]

That's always been a lame excuse.

19 year old Marine lance corporals pulling duty in Al Qaim or Kandahar can somehow abide by pretty strict ROE. Lower pay, more dangerous, actual war vs fictitious War On Thing, and yet their ability to assess threats and discourage aggression without opening fire is excellent.

I don't know why the difference in capability is so stark, but I have to believe it's got something to do with how they're led and a difference in attitude regarding the risk each gun-slinging person has been told they "should" accept. We constantly hear cops defend aggressive action - whether lethal or not - by saying their #1 priority is to go home to their families at night. That is, by definition, not putting public safety ahead of their own, which Once Upon A Time was just implicitly understood about the police and their job to serve and protect.

One of the reason we respect and honor what NY firefighters did on 9/11 so much is because so many of them willingly went into those buildings knowing they might die, some had to know they would probably die. But they went in anyway hoping they'd be able to rescue the citizens they serve and protect.

Somehow we've moved on from a society where military, fire, and police all understood that their core reason to exist was to absorb risk and danger to protect others, to one in which the police force as a whole just doesn't get it any more.

If the police union is so h***bent on the police rights, the same union should shoulder the responsibility (or liability) that comes with said rights (NOT the taxpayer!).The union should have to pay any and all settlements. Then, the union would likely REQUIRE it's officers to wear body cameras and maybe even insist that any civilian interactions not recorded would be considered civilian to civilian, have zero protections, and place the individual officer solely responsible for all implications and costs, legal or otherwise.

 

[AMEHigh]

For context, we would need to know the rate of involvement in violent crime of each respective demographic otherwise that number means nothing. If you point out that George gets 3x more speeding tickets than Chris but completely ignore/leave out the fact that he also speeds 3x more often than Chris... is that really an honest argument?

Actually no, on an individual level that’s the exact opposite of what needs to be known for police to assess an individual situation. That’s why we’re having this problem and discussion because of bias and racism at times. Black people get stopped more than white people. Black people get charged for things like marijuana possession more often than white people although white people use marijuana at similar or higher rates.

I’m pretty sure if cops were patrolling and stopping young white men in the suburbs and on college campuses like they do with Black and brown people they would "find" a lot more crimes.

So no an individual police officer shouldn’t say oh I just arrested a Black man who had a gun, so this next Black man I encounter must also have a gun so when he lifts his arm up I need to shoot him....when in actuality he’s holding a cell phone.

Police need to be held to higher standards.

 

[holaho]

For context, we would need to know the rate of involvement in violent crime of each respective demographic otherwise that number means nothing. If you point out that George gets 3x more speeding tickets than Chris but completely ignore/leave out the fact that he also speeds 3x more often than Chris... is that really an honest argument?

Do you need the rate of involvement in violent crime though? They are comparing a black person, armed with a knife person with a white person, armed with a knife. Both are committing the crime of being armed and being perceived by the police as a threat. The black person has a higher likelihood of being shot. Not the same thing as the speeding ticket example you're giving.

 

[holaho]

The argument that because a certain ethnic group commits a higher percentage of crime does not mean they should be shot every time anyone of that ethnic group commits a crime. Think about it for a second. We are not talking about speeding tickets, we are taking about being shot.

 

[vector2]

For context, we would need to know the rate of involvement in violent crime of each respective demographic otherwise that number means nothing. If you point out that George gets 3x more speeding tickets than Chris but completely ignore/leave out the fact that he also speeds 3x more often than Chris... is that really an honest argument?

You reply a lot without actually reading any of the sources quoted, and that really makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion when someone’s starting premise is usually misinformed. The authors had already thought of your criticism and addressed it

“It is sometimes suggested that in urban areas with more black residents and higher levels of inequality, individuals may be more likely to commit violent crime, and thus the racial bias in police shooting may be explainable as a proximate response by police to areas of high violence and crime (community violence theory [14, 15, 23, 35]). In other words, if the environment is such that race and crime covary, police shooting ratios may show signs of racial bias, even if it is crime, not race, that is the causal driver of police shootings. In the models fit in this study, however, there is no evidence of an association between black-specific crime rates (neither in assault-related arrests nor in weapons-related arrests) and racial bias in police shootings, irrespective of whether or not other controls were included in the model. As such, the results of this study provide no empirical support for the idea that racial bias in police shootings (in the time period, 2011–2014, described in this study) is driven by race-specific crime rates (at least as measured by the proxies of assault- and weapons-related arrest rates in 2012).”

 

[emergentmd]

I get that you think police exist (in part) to protect good guys from bad guys, and they should use their guns to do so. If you think police exist to solve violent crimes, buddy I have bad news for you.

Would you feel the same if your loved one was shot dead while holding a cellphone in their family member's backyard? What if police overreach their stated role of protection? That's what those protests (to be clear for the knuckleheads - not riots) are about.

Sacramento police shot man holding cellphone in his grandmother's yard

Sacramento police officers shot and killed a black man in his grandmother's backyard because they believed he was pointing a gun at them, police said.

www.cnn.com

What a Strawman Argument, typical of your posts. Can't discuss your points, then lets throw the racist word around. Don't agree that police should not shoot to kill, then lets bring up an incident that someone was holding a cell phone.

What I stated is, Rioters/looters/guy holding knife coming at police are thugs. If you disagree then so be it. If they are not thugs, then I hope you will invite them to your house for a nice sit down party.

What I stated is, Guy coming at police with a knife needs to be shot as many time available until he stops coming forward and on the ground.

I never said peaceful protesters are thugs. I never said police had the right to shoot someone with cell phone.

But they have the absolute right to shot to kill when someone walks towards them with a knife.

 

[emergentmd]

The argument that because a certain ethnic group commits a higher percentage of crime does not mean they should be shot every time anyone of that ethnic group commits a crime. Think about it for a second. We are not talking about speeding tickets, we are taking about being shot.

I expect police to shot to kill anyone coming at them with a knife or shoots at them especially with bystanders. If Blacks tend to do this 10x more than whites, then they should be killed 10x more often. If whites do this 10x more often, then they should be killsed 10x more often.

Noone is arguing there is a background of racism. I am arguing that the VAST majority of police officers can care less what color is coming at them with a knife.

 

[dhb]

You know a good way not to get shot at? Don't have a weapon.
My probablity of being shot by the police is 0 if my black counter part's risk is 3x that that still a pretty low number.

 

[vector2]

You know a good way not to get shot at? Don't have a weapon.
My probablity of being shot by the police is 0 if my black counter part's risk is 3x that that still a pretty low number.

Plenty of unarmed people are shot by police and unsurprisingly the rate is 3x higher in black people even in the unarmed cohort.

 

[pgg]

But they have the absolute right to shot to kill when someone walks towards them with a knife.

Nope

Shoot to STOP. Words matter. Intent matters. The aggressor might die from being shot, but the intent in shooting him is to stop him, not kill him.

 

[emergentmd]

Nope

Shoot to STOP. Words matter. Intent matters. The aggressor might die from being shot, but the intent in shooting him is to stop him, not kill him.

Semantics. You know I don't mean you shoot with the explicit intent of killing them. But you shoot with the understanding that you likely can kill them. Shoot for the chest thus shoot to kill. If he is down, then you stop.

 

[deleted500612]

Actually no, on an individual level that’s the exact opposite of what needs to be known for police to assess an individual situation. That’s why we’re having this problem and discussion because of bias and racism at times. Black people get stopped more than white people. Black people get charged for things like marijuana possession more often than white people although white people use marijuana at similar or higher rates.

I’m pretty sure if cops were patrolling and stopping young white men in the suburbs and on college campuses like they do with Black and brown people they would "find" a lot more crimes.

So no an individual police officer shouldn’t say oh I just arrested a Black man who had a gun, so this next Black man I encounter must also have a gun so when he lifts his arm up I need to shoot him....when in actuality he’s holding a cell phone.

Police need to be held to higher standards.

You are creating a strawman argument. I haven't seen anyone arguing that bias or racial stereotyping does not exist, or anyone who disagrees that police should be held to higher standards. I agree with much of your post. I was specifically referring to him citing a statistic without seeing the necessary context (which he later addressed in a follow up post). His post had nothing to do with "on an individual level" and was entirely looking at a population-level statistic. For you to dismiss the need to know a group's frequency of involvement in criminal activity to be able to contextually compare the ratio of total policing actions brought against that group as "the exact opposite of what needs to be known" is kind of a mind-boggling statement though as you are essentially admitting you don't care about empirical evidence or statistics and already hold a pre-formed ideal that you are unwilling to waver from and actually wish to suppress any data that might suggest otherwise (saying it's not just irrelevant, but the "OPPOSITE of what needs to be known" -- in other words suggesting we should keep such data unknown to the public to help further a specific narrative)

 

[vector2]

Resolution of apparent paradoxes in the race-specific frequency of use-of-force by police
Abstract
Analyses of racial disparities in police use-of-force against unarmed individuals are central to public policy interventions; however, recent studies have come to apparently paradoxical findings concerning the existence and form of such disparities. Although anti-black racial disparities in U.S. police shootings have been consistently documented at the population level, new work has suggested that racial disparities in encounter-conditional use of lethal force by police are reversed relative to expectations, with police being more likely to: (1) shoot white relative to black individuals, and (2) use non-lethal as opposed to lethal force on black relative to white individuals. Encounter- and use-of-force-conditional results, however, can be misleading if the rates with which police encounter and use non-lethal force vary across officers and depend on suspect race. We find that all currently described empirical patterns in the structuring of police use-of-force—including the “reversed” racial disparities in encounter-conditional use of lethal force—are explainable under a generative model in which there are consistent and systemic biases against black individuals. If even a small subset of police more frequently encounter and use non-lethal force against black individuals than white individuals, then analyses of pooled encounter-conditional data can fail to correctly detect racial disparities in the use of lethal force. In more technical terms, statistical assessments of racial disparities conditioned on problematic intermediate variables, such as encounters, which might themselves be a causal outcome of racial bias, can produce misleading inferences. Population-level measures of use-of-force by police are more robust indicators of the overall severity of racial disparities than encounter-conditional measures—since the latter neglect the differential morbidity and mortality arising from differential encounter rates. As such, population-level measures should be used when evaluating the local-level public health implications of racial disparities in police use-of-force. Research on encounter-conditional use-of-force by police can also fruitfully contribute to public policy discussions, since population-level measures alone cannot address whether racial disparities are driven by disparities in encounters or disparities in use-of-force conditional on encounters. Tests for racial biases in the encounter-conditional use of lethal force, however, must account for individual-level variation across officers in terms of race-specific encounter rates or risk falling to Simpson’s paradox.

Resolution of apparent paradoxes in the race-specific frequency of use-of-force by police - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Analyses of racial disparities in police use-of-force against unarmed individuals are central to public policy interventions; however, recent studies have come to apparently paradoxical findings concerning the existence and form of such disparities. Although anti-black racial disparities in U.S...

www.nature.com

 

[GaseousClay]

Plenty of unarmed people are shot by police and unsurprisingly the rate is 3x higher in black people even in the unarmed cohort.

What do you mean by plenty of unarmed people are shot by police? Correct me if I’m wrong but Washington post reported 9 unarmed blacks killed by cops in 2019 and 19 unarmed whites. Each had its own set of circumstances I wouldn’t call that plenty out of the millions and millions of police interactions around the country.

 

[deleted500612]

You reply a lot without actually reading any of the sources quoted, and that really makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion when someone’s starting premise is usually misinformed. The authors had already thought of your criticism and addressed it

“It is sometimes suggested that in urban areas with more black residents and higher levels of inequality, individuals may be more likely to commit violent crime, and thus the racial bias in police shooting may be explainable as a proximate response by police to areas of high violence and crime (community violence theory [14, 15, 23, 35]). In other words, if the environment is such that race and crime covary, police shooting ratios may show signs of racial bias, even if it is crime, not race, that is the causal driver of police shootings. In the models fit in this study, however, there is no evidence of an association between black-specific crime rates (neither in assault-related arrests nor in weapons-related arrests) and racial bias in police shootings, irrespective of whether or not other controls were included in the model. As such, the results of this study provide no empirical support for the idea that racial bias in police shootings (in the time period, 2011–2014, described in this study) is driven by race-specific crime rates (at least as measured by the proxies of assault- and weapons-related arrest rates in 2012).”

Thanks for providing that detail. Did you note the highly questionable methodology of this study? It sounds like a joke to even call this a study when you actually read the methodology of how they gathered the data... They literally got a bunch of random unknown volunteers over the internet to google the term "police involved shooting" and then trusted them to add the hits on the google results page to an excel spreadsheet and then compare the races that were noted in the news reports. Do you think only including incidents that are considered "newsworthy" enough to show up on a google hit page might skew the results (obviously)? They also only included articles that clearly reported the race of the victims (media often selectively decides to report or not report the race of the victim based on if they think it will be more controversial or get them more clicks or not, etc.) Do you think the study is also vulnerable to researcher bias (i.e. those random and unscreened internet users who volunteered to perform the search and contribute to the results are doing so because they are impassioned enough to want to see a specific result, may only submit certain articles and omit others from the database etc; i.e. vulnerable to confirmation bias) ?

1. Using Google’s search tools, isolate a single day (e.g. Jan. 1, 2011, to Jan. 1, 2011) and search for the term “police involved shooting” (don’t use quotation marks). Use Chrome’s Incognito mode when searching to ensure you aren’t getting local results.
2. Read each link on the first 10 pages of results; for any instances of shootings involving a police officer, log them in the form.
3. We’re looking at 2011, 2012, [2013 and 2014], and tracking date, name, age, gender, race/ethnicity, injured/killed, and a number of other fields. Please be as thorough as possible with each incident, and provide links to where you found the information (this will be crucial during verification). Often, the first day of reports will not have personal details, and a second search of subsequent days will fill in more of the story.
4. Before starting in, take a look at the submissions here and pick a day that no one has begun (“Not Checked” in the third sheet). Remember, we’re starting off by looking at just the past three years.

 

[AMEHigh]

Louisville, KY police training materials used quotes from Hitler. The materials were just stopped being used in 2013. So yeah, that’s the kind of mindset some police departments get in their trainings.

"According to the student news outlet, one slide, titled "Violence of Action," instructed officers to be "ruthless killer," to have a "a mindset void of emotion" and to "meet violence with greater violence."

The slide also reportedly included a line from Hitler's "Mein Kampf" - "The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence" - one of three from the genocidal German leader included in the presentation.”

Kentucky governor condemns use of Hitler quotes in uncovered police training material

Kentucky Gov.

thehill.com

 

[AMEHigh]

Not sure why my post has those lines crossed out. Hope I’m not violating anything.

 

[AMEHigh]

Thanks for providing that detail. Did you note the highly questionable methodology of this study? It sounds like a joke to even call this a study when you actually read the methodology of how they gathered the data... They literally got a bunch of random unknown volunteers over the internet to google the term "police involved shooting" and then trusted them to add the hits on the google results page to an excel spreadsheet and then compare the races that were noted in the news reports. Do you think only including incidents that are considered "newsworthy" enough to show up on a google hit page might skew the results (obviously)? They also only included articles that clearly reported the race of the victims (media often selectively decides to report or not report the race of the victim based on if they think it will be more controversial or get them more clicks or not, etc.) Do you think the study is also vulnerable to researcher bias (i.e. those random and unscreened internet users who volunteered to perform the search and contribute to the results are doing so because they are impassioned enough to want to see a specific result, may only submit certain articles and omit others from the database etc; i.e. vulnerable to confirmation bias) ?

Unfortunately there’s limited official data in regards to police violence and killings. Therefore a lot of the data is journalist and researcher led. This is one organization that focuses on getting the correct data, but they get that data through searching google and other journalistic means. So yeah data in regards to fatal police encounters is going to come from such sources. Fatal Encounters – A step toward creating an impartial, comprehensive and searchable national database of people killed during interactions with police.

 

[deleted500612]

Unfortunately there’s limited official data in regards to police violence and killings. Therefore a lot of the data is journalist and researcher led. This is one organization that focuses on getting the correct data, but they get that data through searching google and other journalistic means. So yeah data in regards to fatal police encounters is going to come from such sources. Fatal Encounters – A step toward creating an impartial, comprehensive and searchable national database of people killed during interactions with police.

There's already a comprehensive FBI database with detailed statistical crime data on all this stuff, it just doesn't show the result some people want it to show so they decide they need to take matters into their own hands and start a spreadsheet based off of their google search results, which is supposed to prove the FBI database wrong I guess?

 

[deleted500612]

Not sure why my post has those lines crossed out. Hope I’m not violating anything.

Nah you're fine. You may have accidentally hit the strikethrough formatting button before you submitted (it's right beside underline at the top of the text box)

 

[vector2]

What do you mean by plenty of unarmed people are shot by police? Correct me if I’m wrong but Washington post reported 9 unarmed blacks killed by cops in 2019 and 19 unarmed whites. Each had its own set of circumstances I wouldn’t call that plenty out of the millions and millions of police interactions around the country.

Sigh, politics and economic threads here get so tiresome. Same topics rehashed over and over. Same misinformation has to get corrected over and over.

But anyways, yes, you’re wrong. Which one is at high risk of when you get your facts from Charlie Kirk’s incorrect facebook posts..

Wapo showed 13 unarmed black people killed in 2019. Furthermore, wapo data are incomplete- they only list shootings (I.e. George Floyd wouldn’t have been in there). And beyond that, they do not source as extensively as others. More comprehensive sources are Fatal Encounters and Mapping Police Violence, of which the latter shows 25 unarmed black men killed in 19. Regardless, you’re cherry picking one year. If you look at 2015 for instance, 1000 were killed and 90 were unarmed.

And in the vein of rehashing another discussion that’s already been had, I use the the term “plenty” with a comparison in mind to other countries which have similar or higher levels of crime and similar or higher levels of legal or illegal gun ownership. Our rate of 35 police killings per 10 million puts our rate somewhere between Colombia and Nigeria.

 

[AMEHigh]

There's already a comprehensive FBI database with detailed statistical crime data on all this stuff, it just doesn't show the result some people want it to show so they decide they need to take matters into their own hands and start a spreadsheet based off of their google search results, which is supposed to prove the FBI database wrong I guess?

My understanding is that database just started a year or 2 ago and that it’s completely voluntary. So no I don’t think it’s fully comprehensive since it just started and agencies aren’t forced to report, which makes sense since it’s a federal database and police are state/local.

 

[deleted500612]

My understanding is that database just started a year or 2 ago and that it’s completely voluntary. So no I don’t think it’s fully comprehensive since it just started and agencies aren’t forced to report, which makes sense since it’s a federal database and police are state/local.

True, so it could certainly be subject to some reporting bias also, which I agree is important to note. However, it is still far more comprehensive and also less subject to shenanigans than the "study" cited above for example where random unscreened people are just editing an excel spreadsheet based on their google search results. Also the FBI database includes millions of police encounters from 12,212 law enforcement agencies representing 247 million people (so a total of around 3/4 of the entire population is included in the database). This yields far more statistical power than the study above which only includes a grand total of 740 incidents of police shootings reported to the excel spreadsheet pulled from news reports found on a google search result page.

 

[AMEHigh]

You are creating a strawman argument. I haven't seen anyone arguing that bias or racial stereotyping does not exist, or anyone who disagrees that police should be held to higher standards. I agree with much of your post. I was specifically referring to him citing a statistic without seeing the necessary context (which he later addressed in a follow up post). His post had nothing to do with "on an individual level" and was entirely looking at a population-level statistic. For you to dismiss the need to know a group's frequency of involvement in criminal activity to be able to contextually compare the ratio of total policing actions brought against that group as "the exact opposite of what needs to be known" is kind of a mind-boggling statement though as you are essentially admitting you don't care about empirical evidence or statistics and already hold a pre-formed ideal that you are unwilling to waver from and actually wish to suppress any data that might suggest otherwise (saying it's not just irrelevant, but the "OPPOSITE of what needs to be known" -- in other words suggesting we should keep such data unknown to the public to help further a specific narrative)

Well we’ll have to agree to disagree.
This whole post was started because people are saying that of course Mr Wallace got shot because he had a knife. Then, people not understanding why people are upset and protesting. Then, when many of us have said well white armed people seem to get shot by the police less people are saying no it doesn’t matter, anyone armed should expect to die. So yes, people are essentially saying that the police don’t have bias and that regardless of skin color if you’re armed you’re going to get shot.

But that’s clearly not the case. Vector gave an example of some research and you disagree with it. There’s other research out there as well that Black people disproportionately face violence, including death from the police.

I’m not holding a pre-formed idea, I already know what the data says in general. I do a lot of advocacy work. My point was when police are responding to a call they can’t react on assumptions, that’s how people end up dead like Tamir Rice when they’re not breaking the law or being violent.

Unfortunately we live in a very biased world so it’s hard to erase that (google the research showing how white murderers are portrayed in a more positive light than Black murder victims by the media for example), but it’s something we need to move towards especially for those of us that have people’s lives in their hand like doctors, police officers, etc.

 

[vector2]

Thanks for providing that detail. Did you note the highly questionable methodology of this study? It sounds like a joke to even call this a study when you actually read the methodology of how they gathered the data... They literally got a bunch of random unknown volunteers over the internet to google the term "police involved shooting" and then trusted them to add the hits on the google results page to an excel spreadsheet and then compare the races that were noted in the news reports. Do you think only including incidents that are considered "newsworthy" enough to show up on a google hit page might skew the results (obviously)? They also only included articles that clearly reported the race of the victims (media often selectively decides to report or not report the race of the victim based on if they think it will be more controversial or get them more clicks or not, etc.) Do you think the study is also vulnerable to researcher bias (i.e. those random and unscreened internet users who volunteered to perform the search and contribute to the results are doing so because they are impassioned enough to want to see a specific result, may only submit certain articles and omit others from the database etc; i.e. vulnerable to confirmation bias) ?

This is another post that shows an impressive lack of knowledge about the data and the history of the data on police use of force. As of 2015 there were no official, mandated data on what the hell was actually happening in regard to specifically police killings. Director Comey, himself, called it ridiculous and embarrassing that the FBI has no data and that the main sources of information about these killings at the time were WaPo and The Guardian’s databases.

There's already a comprehensive FBI database with detailed statistical crime data on all this stuff, it just doesn't show the result some people want it to show so they decide they need to take matters into their own hands and start a spreadsheet based off of their google search results, which is supposed to prove the FBI database wrong I guess?

Another fine piece of misinformation. Does this sound “comprehensive” ?
“
The FBI maintains the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), which relies on state and local law enforcement agencies voluntarily submitting crime reports.[24] A study of the years 1976 to 1998 found that both national systems under-report justifiable homicides by police officers, but for different reasons.[24] In addition, from 2007 to 2012, more than 550 homicides by the country's 105 largest law enforcement agencies were missing from FBI records.[25]

Records in the NVSS did not consistently include documentation of police officer involvement. The UCR database did not receive reports of all applicable incidents. The authors concluded that "reliable estimates of the number of justifiable homicides committed by police officers in the United States do not exist."[24]
“

And then in 2019, the FBI launched another database on police killing, but only 40% of departments participated, and likely only the ones who had nothing to report.

So, where does this leave us? It leaves us with the notion that the peer-reviewed study you’re desperate to discredit likely has similar or better methodology than the sources we consider the gold standard today for data on the true number of police killings.

 

[Twiggidy]

My million dollar question has always been: “Why aren’t white people protesting the police when unarmed white men are killed?” I’m genuinely curious. If you want to blame media coverage that’s fine because the media should also show outrage when white people are unjustly killed but as said, the “rate” his higher for black and brown folks.

Follow up: I feel like there has been a bit too much trust in the police by some white folks and this has led to a decrease in police accountability. Just my 2c

 

[deleted500612]

the peer-reviewed study you’re desperate to discredit likely has similar or better methodology than the sources we consider the gold standard today for data on the true number of police killings.

"Desperate" to discredit. Lol, please. Even the most rudimentary and cursory review of the methodology demonstrates it is incredibly flawed. The desperation here is coming from you trying to lend credence to this "study". Ahh yes, anonymous random internet users updating an excel spreadsheet with 700 hand-selected news articles they found on their google search results page is "similar or better" methodology and provides a more comprehensive picture of nationwide crime statistics than the FBI database listing millions of police encounters across 12,212 police departments.

 

[AMEHigh]

My million dollar question has always been: “Why aren’t white people protesting the police when unarmed white men are killed?” I’m genuinely curious. If you want to blame media coverage that’s fine because the media should also show outrage when white people are unjustly killed but as said, the “rate” his higher for black and brown folks.

Follow up: I feel like there has been a bit too much trust in the police by some white folks and this has led to a decrease in police accountability. Just my 2c

Yes agreed. I’ve said time and time again, I don’t know why everyone isn’t pissed. However, if you think about it I think it comes back to bias. White people know that they’re less likely to encounter and be harmed by the police, so shrug, it’s not going to happen to me or my family. The white person that got killed must’ve deserved it.

I do think if it were white women’s bodies we were seeing being gunned down, choked to death or kneeled on to death, then there would be a lot more outrage and protest. That is one thing white people wouldn’t tolerate. I mean we all know that Tarana Burke started discussing "me too" many many years ago yelling about sexual assault and Black women, but it didn’t take off until white women started making a fuss.

 

[deleted480308]

Yes agreed. I’ve said time and time again, I don’t know why everyone isn’t pissed. However, if you think about it I think it comes back to bias. White people know that they’re less likely to encounter and be harmed by the police, so shrug, it’s not going to happen to me or my family. The white person that got killed must’ve deserved it.

I do think if it were white women’s bodies we were seeing being gunned down, choked to death or kneeled on to death, then there would be a lot more outrage and protest. That is one thing white people wouldn’t tolerate. I mean we all know that Tarana Burke started discussing "me too" many many years ago yelling about sexual assault and Black women, but it didn’t take off until white women started making a fuss.

I think it’s possible you overestimate the tribalism of white people. Almost all of us thought George Floyd was killed innappropriately and that the officers should be charged. It’s more likely the fact that Burke is a relative unknown and the hashtag was picked up my major celebrities (being famous the more important factor here than being white) which led to it’s adoption by culture at large

 

[vector2]

"Desperate" to discredit. Lol, please. Even the most rudimentary and cursory review of the methodology demonstrates it is incredibly flawed. The desperation here is coming from you trying to lend credence to this "study". Ahh yes, anonymous random internet users updating an excel spreadsheet with 700 hand-selected news articles they found on their google search results page is "similar or better" methodology and provides a more comprehensive picture of nationwide crime statistics than the FBI database listing millions of police encounters across 12,212 police departments.

It’s pretty glaringly obvious that you didn’t address

1. The FBI UCR database is not geared toward police shootings, is totally voluntarily, and is missing hundreds of documented police killings
2. Comey himself acknowledged in 2015 that the lack of FBI data on police shootings was ridiculous and embarrassing
3. The FBI databases established since that time are still voluntarily and don’t even have a 50% participation rate. Furthermore, as of 2019 no data from the FBI’s new db’s has been published.
4. The gold standards for police killing data come from databases like WaPo, the Guardian, Mapping Police Violence, and Fatal Encounters.

Guess what kind of methodology the gold standards use since there is still no mandatory govt data reported? You guessed it- online searches of news, social media, police reports etc. Hence why that was the methodology of the peer-reviewed study I posted.

Try harder with your trolling next time.

 

[Twiggidy]

I think it’s possible you overestimate the tribalism of white people. Almost all of us thought George Floyd was killed innappropriately and that the officers should be charged. It’s more likely the fact that Burke is a relative unknown and the hashtag was picked up my major celebrities (being famous the more important factor here than being white) which led to it’s adoption by culture at large

You must admit that outrage doesn't occur until it happens "in your back yard" so to speak. People were certainly mad about George Floyd but there wasn't a "police problem" until white women and old white men were getting shot with rubber bullets.

 

[deleted480308]

You must admit that outrage doesn't occur until it happens "in your back yard" so to speak. People were certainly mad about George Floyd but there wasn't a "police problem" until white women and old white men were getting shot with rubber bullets.

There was a problem with those officers. Pretty universal agreement

 

[Twiggidy]

There was a problem with those officers. Pretty universal agreement

Well again, and I understand you can't answer for white people as a whole, but why aren't white folks as outraged when unarmed white people are killed?

 

[Apollyon]

Well again, and I understand you can't answer for white people as a whole, but why aren't white folks as outraged when unarmed white people are killed?

I'm just one white guy, 3rd generation American, public school product, and, for me, at least, my first thought is, usually, maybe they deserved it? "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes"? I have a buddy who just retired from the NYPD, and he was on the force investigation team. They were actually looking for the police to be wrong, and most shootings were found to be justified. I learned from him how to not get shot by a cop (seriously). I have a neighbor up the street who is an officer with the town police. I trust him.

I don't know why. I grew up lower middle class/upper low class, and I've never rioted.

 

[deleted547339]

There are plenty of reasons to riot in regards to the treatment of minorities by law enforcement. This just doesn't happen to be a very good example since there was real harm the victim could have done.

Unfortunately many people will use the riots following this "justified" shooting (if you believe in such a thing, hence why I put it in quotes) to delegitimize the entire idea of holding police officers accountable for their behavior towards minorities.

Ummmm, no. It doesn’t matter what your first statement is followed with. There are almost no reasons to riot, period. Are there reasons to be pissed? Are there reasons to protest? Sure. Are there reasons to riot? Essentially always no. A riot is an inherently disordered, irrational response. Destroying private property and stealing from people who in no way are related to the cause of the riot is insane

 

[doctalaughs]

Well again, and I understand you can't answer for white people as a whole, but why aren't white folks as outraged when unarmed white people are killed?

I would be outraged at specific instances based on the circumstances. Certainly I would be outraged if they died like George Floyd.

I would be not outraged if they were violent, charging an officer (ala Michael Brown), grabbing at weapons, firing a police taser at them (ala Rayshard Brooks) etc.

I would be actually appreciative of police if they brandished a knife and were a public danger (or a white guy in the same situation that started this thread).

 

[Twiggidy]

I'm just one white guy, 3rd generation American, public school product, and, for me, at least, my first thought is, usually, maybe they deserved it? "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes"? I have a buddy who just retired from the NYPD, and he was on the force investigation team. They were actually looking for the police to be wrong, and most shootings were found to be justified. I learned from him how to not get shot by a cop (seriously). I have a neighbor up the street who is an officer with the town police. I trust him.

I don't know why. I grew up lower middle class/upper low class, and I've never rioted.

Now I'll argue that some of it is based on history. It's not a shocker to anyone that black people's history with the police is vastly different than white people's history with the police. It doesn't surprise me that white people would generally be more trusting of the police, even in cases where the police were probably in the wrong. You even said it that your initial thought is that "maybe the deserved it" whereas historically in this country with black people there has been a lot death that wasn't deserved.

I'll admit that even when I myself, with a damn MD and a clean record, comes in close contact with police, ie we just happen to be in the same place at the same time, one of first thoughts in my head is "oh damn, here's the police". I have absolutely no reason to think like that other than the fact there's history behind that thinking. So it's really easy to realize, the two races have very different histories with the police and it quite honestly shouldn't be shocking when black folks are outraged by police killings.

 

[Twiggidy]

I would be outraged at specific instances based on the circumstances. Certainly I would be outraged if they died like George Floyd.

I would be not outraged if they were violent, charging an officer (ala Michael Brown), grabbing at weapons etc.

I would be actually appreciative of police if they had a knife and were a public danger (or a white guy in the same situation that started this thread).

See what Im getting at here is that there are nearly 3000 unarmed white cases of "police harm" that get shrugged off. They couldn't have all deserved it. What's the number where white folks will stand up and, instead of mocking our protests with chants of "All Lives Matter", be actually outraged? Like I said, I'm genuine curious because as I said earlier in this thread, I think the police need to be held to a higher standard. (The irony is that I'm almost literally "All Lives Matter"-ing the issue as the black guy)

 

[Apollyon]

Now I'll argue that some of it is based on history. It's not a shocker to anyone that black people's history with the police is vastly different than white people's history with the police. It doesn't surprise me that white people would generally be more trusting of the police, even in cases where the police were probably in the wrong. You even said it that your initial thought is that "maybe the deserved it" whereas historically in this country with black people there has been a lot death that wasn't deserved.

I'll admit that even when I myself, with a damn MD and a clean record, comes in close contact with police, ie we just happen to be in the same place at the same time, one of first thoughts in my head is "oh damn, here's the police". I have absolutely no reason to think like that other than the fact there's history behind that thinking. So it's really easy to realize, the two races have very different histories with the police and it quite honestly shouldn't be shocking when black folks are outraged by police killings.

In the community where you live, how many police officers share the same race as you? I mean, honest question, do you say the same thing when it's a black officer?

 

[Twiggidy]

In the community where you live, how many police officers share the same race as you? I mean, honest question, do you say the same thing when it's a black officer?

I think the police department in my community is 10% black. Am I a little more comfortable with black police officer....um yeah, a little, but 9 times out of 10 I'm going to see a police officer that doesn't look like me.

 

[Medisaint]

This thread has turned into a **** storm but what the heck.

Personally, I think there should be a national referendum on what behavior will get a person justifiably shot in their state. I think that would fix a lot of the Monday morning quarterbacking that goes on nowadays that amounts to basically "I would have disarmed him, judo flipped him and saved the day".

There is a shocking lack of consensus on some of the most basic principles. We are a free society. If we don't like these rules we can vote to change them and arm police officers with miniguns or water pistols. Police officers can then opt to take the job or not. The way it is right now every time a black person gets shot (irrespective of whatever they were doing beforehand) half the population is flabbergasted and the other half thinks he/she had it coming.

 

[doctalaughs]

See what Im getting at here is that there are nearly 3000 unarmed white cases of "police harm" that get shrugged off. They couldn't have all deserved it. What's the number where white folks will stand up and, instead of mocking our protests with chants of "All Lives Matter", be actually outraged? Like I said, I'm genuine curious because as I said earlier in this thread, I think the police need to be held to a higher standard. (The irony is that I'm almost literally "All Lives Matter"-ing the issue as the black guy)
View attachment 322021

Just curious what the perception is out there (purely opinion) about what percentage of those killings by police referenced above were “justified” vs not.

I’m sure opinions will vary wildly — but I would be interested in others ballpark guesses.

 

[ChiDO]

I think the police department in my community is 10% black. Am I a little more comfortable with black police officer....um yeah, a little, but 9 times out of 10 I'm going to see a police officer that doesn't look like me.

I get nervous when the cops pull me over and I'm a nerdy white guy. Last time I was pulled over, I opened my windows, had license, registration and insurance sitting on the center console and had my hands on the wheel as he approached. Then when he started talking to me I started talking about my speed control (instead of saying cruise control... Lol).

Was I nervous that I'd get shot, absolutely not, but was nervous as ****. But I was taught to be respectful and do all the above actions and obey commands. If you do the above, I find it hard to believe anyone would get shot in that scenario.

So when I see 3k white dudes killed, I assume "do stupid things, win stupid prizes". And maybe that's very unfortunate way of thinking for me.

 

[Twiggidy]

I get nervous when the cops pull me over and I'm a nerdy white guy. Last time I was pulled over, I opened my windows, had license, registration and insurance sitting on the center console and had my hands on the wheel as he approached. Then when he started talking to me I started talking about my speed control (instead of saying cruise control... Lol).

Was I nervous that I'd get shot, absolutely not, but was nervous as ****. But I was taught to be respectful and do all the above actions and obey commands. If you do the above, I find it hard to believe anyone would get shot in that scenario.

So when I see 3k white dudes killed, I assume "do stupid things, win stupid prizes". And maybe that's very unfortunate way of thinking for me.

Let me preamble by saying I’m not attacking your response.

You say it’s hard to believe anyone would get shot in that scenario and I simply respond Philando Castille.

We don’t do the right things we get shot and we do the right things we get shot, at this point black folks are like “Which is it?” At what point do the police actually become the problem? Kudos you can navigate the world were 3000 of your own are harmed by law enforcement and it doesn’t get a bit of skepticism.

So at this point it’s just established that white folk generally trust and believe the police. I guess they haven’t really given them reason it to.

 

[doctalaughs]

See what Im getting at here is that there are nearly 3000 unarmed white cases of "police harm" that get shrugged off. They couldn't have all deserved it. What's the number where white folks will stand up and, instead of mocking our protests with chants of "All Lives Matter", be actually outraged? Like I said, I'm genuine curious because as I said earlier in this thread, I think the police need to be held to a higher standard. (The irony is that I'm almost literally "All Lives Matter"-ing the issue as the black guy)
View attachment 322021

The other interesting thing about these graphs are the incredibly low number of Asians killed by police, as a proportion of their demographics (about 6% of the population but less than 1% of those killed). Conversely blacks are 13% of the population but almost 40% of the deaths.

The proportions killed by race also seem to mirror the # of violent crimes committed by race, as a percentage roughly. I don’t buy the whole “police look for more crimes in black neighborhoods” — this would make sense for stuff like drug possession crimes; but it’s not like there’s a ton of homicide overlooked and ignored in affluent (or poor) white neighborhoods

Unless police have magically decided to treat Asians 5x better than whites (in some sort of weird reverse-racism way), this data suggests to me that police killings aren’t driven by systemic racism— they just mirror who commit violent crimes.

 

[Twiggidy]

I just realized I posted the graph with the incorrect highlight

 

[vector2]

Just curious what the perception is out there (purely opinion) about what percentage of those killings by police referenced above were “justified” vs not.

I’m sure opinions will vary wildly — but I would be interested in others ballpark guesses.

The following figure is from only 2017 where there were approximately 1150 police killings of all-comers including armed and unarmed

2023 Police Violence Report

Comprehensive review of killings by police in 2023.

policeviolencereport.org

Given that the majority of encounters are for suspected non-violent offenses, I would venture that the vast majority of the 150 unarmed deaths were not justified or were potentially avoidable by using non-lethal force.

 

[Twiggidy]

The other interesting thing about these graphs are the incredibly low number of Asians killed by police, as a proportion of their demographics (about 6% of the population but less than 1% of those killed). Conversely blacks are 13% of the population but almost 40% of the deaths.

The proportions killed by race also seem to mirror the # of violent crimes committed by race, as a percentage roughly. I don’t buy the whole “police look for more crimes in black neighborhoods” — this would make sense for stuff like drug possession crimes; but it’s not like there’s a ton of homicide overlooked and ignored in affluent (or poor) white neighborhoods

Unless police have magically decided to treat Asians 5x better than whites (in some sort of weird reverse-racism way), this data suggests to me that police killings aren’t driven by systemic racism— they just mirror who commit violent crimes.

The data shows that based on population black people commit 3x as much violent crime as white people, but seriously, does that actually support the disproportionate killing of black people by police? Personally I don't think so. Fat people have a higher rate of difficult airway but I don't think every single one of them needs a FOB intubation. Strange argument but I stand by it.