Harvard study finds NO bias against blacks in police shootings

[realibrad]

Considering we know that police frequently lie in their reports doesn't that seem like a problematic source?

That doesn't mean this research has no value, but I would be very hesitant to take the conclusions of this paper as being particularly solid when it counterdicts prior research and is based off a source that we know is almost certainly biased.

I want to respond to this Churchill style. The only source less reliable than cops are all others. Cops lie, but usually its everyone else that lies more. We should take a grain of salt when anything is said. We should look for evidence to support statements.

 

[glenn1]

Considering we know that police frequently lie in their reports doesn't that seem like a problematic source?

That doesn't mean this research has no value, but I would be very hesitant to take the conclusions of this paper as being particularly solid when it counterdicts prior research and is based off a source that we know is almost certainly biased.

What other existing sources are there whether less biased or not? It's not like someone is collecting non-police eyewitness accounts and putting them into a structured database so you could perform analysis. You could certainly caveat the shit out of the report so that policy makers could understand its limitations, but surely you would say that findings using imperfect data are better than no findings at all?

 

[fskimospy]

What other existing sources are there whether less biased or not? It's not like someone is collecting non-police eyewitness accounts and putting them into a structured database so you could perform analysis. You could certainly caveat the shit out of the report so that policy makers could understand its limitations, but surely you would say that findings using imperfect data are better than no findings at all?

I do think that findings with imperfect data are better than no findings at all! The thing is that we also have other research using different (also imperfect) data sources that have come to the opposite conclusion. (data collected by NGOs)

It seems like the best conclusions we can make based on the available data is that it is very likely the police disproportionately employ violence against black people but we don't know for sure if they are more likely to shoot them and should investigate more.

 

[werepossum]

Considering we know that police frequently lie in their reports doesn't that seem like a problematic source?

That doesn't mean this research has no value, but I would be very hesitant to take the conclusions of this paper as being particularly solid when it counterdicts prior research and is based off a source that we know is almost certainly biased.

For the first, I agree with Realibrad. What possible source is more accurate than police reports?

For the second, it doesn't so much contradict prior research as account for more variables and hopefully add to our understanding.

I want to respond to this Churchill style. The only source less reliable than cops are all others. Cops lie, but usually its everyone else that lies more. We should take a grain of salt when anything is said. We should look for evidence to support statements.

Agreed. Anymore we have "witnesses" who weren't even in the area.

 

[fskimospy]

For the first, I agree with Realibrad. What possible source is more accurate than police reports?

For the second, it doesn't so much contradict prior research as account for more variables and hopefully add to our understanding.

It definitely contradicts prior research, as that research found that blacks were many times more likely to be shot by police. As for what is more accurate, each data set has its own problems. When you use things other than police reports you have a less comprehensive picture, but when you do use police reports you have an obviously self-interested actor who is likely to present a less than truthful account of the situation.

It's not so much a question of which is best, it is that together they provide a more complete picture. Before this latest study the evidence strongly suggested bias in police shootings. Now it is less clear if that's the case. One thing we shouldn't overlook however is that all the studies seem to agree that police disproportionately employ physical violence against black people, which is still horrifying.

Agreed. Anymore we have "witnesses" who weren't even in the area.

And of course we frequently have 'armed and attacking' black suspects who turned out to be nothing of the sort. Both datasets have problems with reliability.

 

[Knowing]

This might deserve another thread.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/negative-views-of-race-relations-reach-all-time-high-cbsnyt-poll/

Despite what the "experts" might say on TV, it appears as though almost everyone thinks we're getting farther apart.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The witnesses in the Michael Brown shooting proved to be unreliable. The official results of the forensic data proved that 'hands up, don't shoot' was BS.

For the first, I agree with Realibrad. What possible source is more accurate than police reports?

For the second, it doesn't so much contradict prior research as account for more variables and hopefully add to our understanding.


Agreed. Anymore we have "witnesses" who weren't even in the area.

 

[HTFOff]

For one, it's not a "Harvard" study. Two, it's not a study its a working paper. Lastly, it hasn't been peer reviewed.

Now with that new information, it must be said, any findings should be taken with a grain of salt.

Again, what information put forth in the study is factually incorrect? Pretty simple question.

 

[ivwshane]

Again, what information put forth in the study is factually incorrect? Pretty simple question.

Try reading my post again, then re read it and see if you can understand what I wrote.

 

[HTFOff]

Try reading my post again, then re read it and see if you can understand what I wrote.

Translation = "I have no evidence of factual misrepresentation, instead I object to the information put forth on a purely emotional level, go BLUE!"

 

[umbrella39]

Again, what information put forth in the study is factually incorrect? Pretty simple question.

Knowing that it isn't what the OP claimed it to be what information put forth in the study is factually correct? Seems just as simple a question...

 

[VtPC83]

The problem is this;

Those who oppose the police in these matters almost unanimously believe the police are all liars and so will never believe that police reports are truthful. Ironically, those they believe are truthful, bystanders, are shown to be even less truthful than the police.

I would have previously said the 2 sides would only reconcile once police started wearing bodycams but now we have those against police STILL accusing the police of improper tactics even through absolute sheer video proof.

Thus, there will never be any reconciling between the two sides and no reports or statistics or magical fairies will ever change that.

 

[ivwshane]

Translation = "I have no evidence of factual misrepresentation, instead I object to the information put forth on a purely emotional level, go BLUE!"

Says the guy who is so emotionally invested in this issue that basic reading comprehension is no where to be found.

 

[werepossum]

The problem is this;

Those who oppose the police in these matters almost unanimously believe the police are all liars and so will never believe that police reports are truthful. Ironically, those they believe are truthful, bystanders, are shown to be even less truthful than the police.

I would have previously said the 2 sides would only reconcile once police started wearing bodycams but now we have those against police STILL accusing the police of improper tactics even through absolute sheer video proof.

Thus, there will never be any reconciling between the two sides and no reports or statistics or magical fairies will ever change that.

Agreed, but while the loudest people are unlikely to be swayed by video evidence, I think most people are reasonable and will believe what they see.

 

[chucky2]

The witnesses in the Michael Brown shooting proved to be unreliable. The official results of the forensic data proved that 'hands up, don't shoot' was BS.

What are you talking about man, those folks are "data sources" for NGO's! Buwhahaha! ()

 

[VtPC83]

Agreed, but while the loudest people are unlikely to be swayed by video evidence, I think most people are reasonable and will believe what they see.

I agree with you here as well, unfortunately the loudest people are the ones who get the most media time and exposure and so represent the face of any movement to their opposition.

If BLM is to succeed they need to have their more reasonable people be louder than the non-reasonable ones, something I don't see happening.

 

[Darwin333]

It's too late, the misinformation has already been released to the public and will now be repeated by the masses. The truth probably won't even get a mention.

The truly sad part is that the real truth can't possibly be known, at least not nationwide. How there is absolute no nationwide standard on reporting the use of force against civilians by government employees is beyond me. Individual departments can, and do, massage stats and reports to shine themselves in a better light all of the time and there is virtually nothing we can do about it because of the lack of any standard.

Even a number as simple as people killed by the police every year is a subjective number. The numbers have to be aggregated from a crazy amount of sources. Even then, the reporting can still be massaged. For example, some departments don't consider a person as killed by the police if the victim makes it to the hospital but later dies due to the gunshot.

The bottom line is that at least nationally it's virtually impossible to have a debate with any sort of hard reliable numbers.

 

[JSt0rm]

I thought we debunked this story already?

 

[WHAMPOM]

I am putting this Harvard study in the same category as unvetted reports of cold fusion power. Was there any independent investigation carried out?

 

[WHAMPOM]

It definitely contradicts prior research, as that research found that blacks were many times more likely to be shot by police. As for what is more accurate, each data set has its own problems. When you use things other than police reports you have a less comprehensive picture, but when you do use police reports you have an obviously self-interested actor who is likely to present a less than truthful account of the situation.

It's not so much a question of which is best, it is that together they provide a more complete picture. Before this latest study the evidence strongly suggested bias in police shootings. Now it is less clear if that's the case. One thing we shouldn't overlook however is that all the studies seem to agree that police disproportionately employ physical violence against black people, which is still horrifying.



And of course we frequently have 'armed and attacking' black suspects who turned out to be nothing of the sort. Both datasets have problems with reliability.

If we go with the police side there are no unjustified killings of civilians, which is impossible, the other side does admit to some, which is more believable.

 

[umbrella39]

I thought we debunked this story already?

Why hasn't the OP fixed his false thread title yet? Integrity missing...

 

[hal2kilo]

I am putting this Harvard study in the same category as unvetted reports of cold fusion power. Was there any independent investigation carried out?

Just ask Rossi, he will tell you it works.

 

[agent00f]

I want to respond to this Churchill style. The only source less reliable than cops are all others. Cops lie, but usually its everyone else that lies more. We should take a grain of salt when anything is said. We should look for evidence to support statements.

Cops vs citizens are usually adversarial in criminal cases. Only one of those sides is basically immune from prosecution.

Also, forgot to add that police are trained to lie. Most people like those here who don't interact much with the law aren't aware that cops are routinely manipulative or whatever it takes during interrogation & such to get results for successful prosecution. They are sworn to truth on the stand, but as implied there's little incentive given lack of consequences. This doesn't mean cops are bad people, it's how the legal system works.

 

[werepossum]

Why hasn't the OP fixed his false thread title yet? Integrity missing...

What specifically do you feel I should change?

 

[ivwshane]

What specifically do you feel I should change?

I guess you don't follow your own thread.

It's not from Harvard. Its not a study.