Harvard study finds NO bias against blacks in police shootings

[someEEguy]

Per interaction, Yes. But whites and blacks don't have the same rates of police interaction.

This study does not contradict the statistics in past studies, what it does is help understand them better. What this study combined with past statistics suggest, is police don’t fatally shoot unarmed black men at disproportionate rates because that is what they set out to do; but rather purely a product of initiating more frequent interactions with members of the community in question (this also explains the marijuana arrest discrepancies).

Full disclosure here; I made a slight correction to my previous post. As it made it sound as though black people being subjected to disproportionate police-civilian interaction was purely random chance, which was not my intention.

The disproportionate interactions are likely do to some combination of socioeconomic status, area, and racial bias (given the authors inability to eliminate it as a factor in the case of non-lethal force, it stands to reason that the lesser act of initiating interactions is likely affected as well). But this topic needs more study to figure out how it breaks down. Unless someone knows of one?

 

[Capt Caveman]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/harvard-study-officer-involved-shootings/

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/harvard-study-officer-involved-shootings/

Never lets facts get in the way of news.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Never lets facts get in the way of news.

If that occurred most of the media stories would never be published and this forum would cease to exist.

 

[umbrella39]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/harvard-study-officer-involved-shootings/

Oh come one now! Don't rain on the usual suspects parade! Clearly, there is NO, I repeat as per the OP, NO bias against blacks in police shootings!!!!

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

If that occurred most of the media stories would never be published and this forum would cease to exist.

Stories left unpublished is profit left unmade.

[Tiny Tina]Eat cupcakes get moneyyy![/Tina Tina]

 

[ivwshane]

Never lets facts get in the way of news.

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.

 

[zinfamous]

This really surprised me. A Harvard study finds that there IS a racial bias in how quickly officers resort to hands-on non-lethal force with blacks, but finds NO bias against blacks in police shootings. In fact, an unarmed man not attacking the officer is more likely to be shot by police if he's white than if he's black.

seems reasonable

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

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.

Truth is boring. And boring doesn't make money.

 

[HTFOff]

Never lets facts get in the way of news.

What "facts" do you think that the Harvard study incorrectly put forth were corrected in the "snopes.com" article.

Please be specific.

This should be good.

 

[ivwshane]

Truth is boring. And boring doesn't make money.

Perhaps. I myself find the truth to be sexy and exciting.

 

[ivwshane]

What "facts" do you think that the Harvard study incorrectly put forth were corrected in the "snopes.com" article.

Please be specific.

This should be good.

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.

 

[Balt]

It really doesn't. Harvard study finds NO bias against blacks in police shootings (according to police reports).

What would you suggest basing it on?

In the Michael Brown/Ferguson shooting, for example, the cop's account of events and the forensics were far more accurate than some of the witnesses' who just completely made up shit to make it seem like Brown was gunned down by some racist, trigger-happy cop.

 

[agent00f]

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 OP article is just terrible in and of itself, indicative of journalists who've no experience reading academic lit or little reasoning ability in general. Fryer's own data shows massive discrepancy between police reporting and citizen reporting while relying exclusively on the former, which is a huge red flag that makes any conclusion questionable.

Funny enough, conservatives have a point here if they argued that the NYT mostly published it because it's done by a black guy.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Here's the thoughts of a black policeman who works in a predominantly black neighborhood.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/07...sty-and-every-american-needs-to-see-it-363067

The policeman's post and the comments left by several people of color remind me of several of my own experiences growing up (and still on occasion even today). It's disheartening. 🙁

 

[JSt0rm]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/harvard-study-officer-involved-shootings/

oops. back to the drawing board.

 

[Blue_Max]

oops. back to the drawing board.

Might want to check her out more: http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/

Seems the only thing she writes about is "social justice" so I can't help but think she's got an agenda to push on this one too. Her "disproof" seems to be pretty weak too, mostly just word-salad. Saying little, proving less, using as many words as possible.

 

[ivwshane]

Might want to check her out more: http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/

Seems the only thing she writes about is "social justice" so I can't help but think she's got an agenda to push on this one too. Her "disproof" seems to be pretty weak too, mostly just word-salad. Saying little, proving less, using as many words as possible.

Lol
Fail

 

[JSt0rm]

Might want to check her out more: http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/

Seems the only thing she writes about is "social justice" so I can't help but think she's got an agenda to push on this one too. Her "disproof" seems to be pretty weak too, mostly just word-salad. Saying little, proving less, using as many words as possible.

You are mentally ill.

 

[Blue_Max]

You are mentally ill.

Wow, what an impressive argument! Gosh, I'm convinced and now accept the will of social justice in my heart! I'll join you in the protest drum circle as soon as my deodorant wears off! :awe:

 

[ivwshane]

Wow, what an impressive argument! Gosh, I'm convinced and now accept the will of social justice in my heart! I'll join you in the protest drum circle as soon as my deodorant wears off! :awe:

It was about the same level of intelligence as was your rebuttal. That is to say, not very impressive let alone convincing.

 

[JSt0rm]

it was a low effort burn. I dont feel like spending much time on him.

 

[zinfamous]

Might want to check her out more: http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/

Seems the only thing she writes about is "social justice" so I can't help but think she's got an agenda to push on this one too. Her "disproof" seems to be pretty weak too, mostly just word-salad. Saying little, proving less, using as many words as possible.

Lol
Fail

Wow, what an impressive argument! Gosh, I'm convinced and now accept the will of social justice in my heart! I'll join you in the protest drum circle as soon as my deodorant wears off! :awe:

I submit your original post up there, as a response to your actual criticism^

which is basically: "an agenda to push on this one too. [My] "disproof" seems to be pretty weak too, mostly just word-salad. Saying little, proving less, using as many words as possible."

Good one.

 

[jonks]

In the Michael Brown/Ferguson shooting, for example, the cop's account of events and the forensics were far more accurate than some of the witnesses' who just completely made up shit to make it seem like Brown was gunned down by some racist, trigger-happy cop.

You're right, the racist trigger-happy cop was the one who shot Walter Scott and fabricated a police report until video surfaced showing he made it up. Between the two, which do you think occurs more frequently?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...er-scotts-death-video-showed-really-happened/

 

[fskimospy]

What would you suggest basing it on?

In the Michael Brown/Ferguson shooting, for example, the cop's account of events and the forensics were far more accurate than some of the witnesses' who just completely made up shit to make it seem like Brown was gunned down by some racist, trigger-happy cop.

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.