Crime Harvard professor says ‘all hell broke loose’ when his study found no racial bias in police shootings

[Two Crows]

He was one of 33 people there. Where were people so upset? I'm plugging his name into Reddit right now, which I've been told is a hellhole of soyboy cuck leftists, and there is hardly any discussion of him at all. And it looks like only one thread with any discussion from 2016. They don't seem very upset:

I've decided to go ahead and read the 57 page paper. I'm a grad student in Econ and maybe I can use this for a paper or assignment somehow (though I kind of doubt it, DEI has nothing to do with my area).

I'll give you a summary tomorrow (or the next 2-3 days, depending on my schedule), but I can already tell you none of the four datasets utilized relied upon self-reporting police departments, and I have no idea where the idea it was just Houston came from.

The study includes 5 million incidents in NYC (Stop & Frisk), over 400,000 nation-wide Police Contact surveys from the DOJ, police departments of Boston, Camden, Austin, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles and six whole counties of Florida over 15 years. Philadelphia & Tacoma agreed, but never provided data. Camden had just 1 officer involved shooting, so they were excluded.

I'm about 10 pages in, but I'm not going to finish all 57 tonight.

Also, the analysis is going to have some statics, though they might not be what most WR posters are used to.

P.S. Fryer is nearly apologetic in his opening and conclusion, and describes different approaches they took to the data trying to find evidence of discrimination in police shootings. His abstract mention of 50% greater violence is all the evidence you need. The first paragraph on page 4 shows after variables are accounted for (IOW, resisting arrest, running away, etc.), the OR drops to 1.178 for Black suspects and 1.122 for Hispanics.
That's 17% more for Black and 12% more for Hispanics.
He used the non-factored 50% to look bigger and more problematic.

 

[HOLA]

I've decided to go ahead and read the 57 page paper. I'm a grad student in Econ and maybe I can use this for a paper or assignment somehow (though I kind of doubt it).

I'll give you a summary tomorrow, but I can already tell you none of the four datasets utilized relied upon self-reporting police departments, and I have no idea where the idea it was just Houston came from.

The Fox News article says it:
For his study, Fryer collected data about police-involved shootings from 10 law enforcement agencies — Houston, Dallas, Austin, Los Angeles County and six cities or counties in Florida. Although he drew some conclusions from all 10 data sets, Fryer relied mainly on Houston's because it was the most complete.

His study says, when they're specifically talking about fatal police shootings, that centers on Houston 2000-2015.

The study includes 5 million incidents in NYC (Stop & Frisk), over 400,000 nation-wide Police Contact surveys from the DOJ, police departments of Boston, Camden, Austin, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles and six whole counties of Florida over 15 years. Philadelphia & Tacoma agreed, but never provided data. Camden had just 1 officer involved shooting, so they were excluded.

I'm about 10 pages in, but I'm not going to finish all 57 tonight.

Also, the analysis is going to have some statics, though they might not be what most WR posters are used to.

P.S. Fryer is nearly apologetic in his opening and conclusion, and describes different approaches they took to the data trying to find evidence of discrimination in police shootings. Also, what ever paper wrote Blacks & Hispanics suffer physical violence at a 50% greater rate should be fired on the spot.

IV. Estimating Racial Di↵erences in Non-Lethal Use of Force...

Row (a) in Table 2 presents the di↵erences in means for any use of force conditional on a police interaction. These results reflect the raw gaps in whether or not a police stop results in any use offorce, by race. Blacks are 53% more likely to experience any use of force relative to a white mean of15.3 percent. The raw gap for Hispanics is almost identical. Asians are no more likely than whites to experience use of force.

 

[Two Crows]

The Fox News article says it:
For his study, Fryer collected data about police-involved shootings from 10 law enforcement agencies — Houston, Dallas, Austin, Los Angeles County and six cities or counties in Florida. Although he drew some conclusions from all 10 data sets, Fryer relied mainly on Houston's because it was the most complete.

His study says, when they're specifically talking about fatal police shootings, that centers on Houston 2000-2015.


IV. Estimating Racial Di↵erences in Non-Lethal Use of Force...

Row (a) in Table 2 presents the di↵erences in means for any use of force conditional on a police interaction. These results reflect the raw gaps in whether or not a police stop results in any use offorce, by race. Blacks are 53% more likely to experience any use of force relative to a white mean of15.3 percent. The raw gap for Hispanics is almost identical. Asians are no more likely than whites to experience use of force.

I don't care what Fox news wrote.

I'm citing the actual paper.

And Row A of Table 2 is NYC with no controls. Just like I wrote.
Literally; "Panel A: NYC Stop, Question, Frisk"

Who thought it was Houston is an idiot. The city is only mentioned as the largest divergence.

 

[HOLA]

I don't care what Fox news wrote.

I'm citing the actual paper.

You said you had no idea where it came from. I told you. In this case, at least, Fox News happens to be right.

They were also right when they said "The study found that police were more than twice as likely to manhandle, beat or use some other kind of nonfatal force against blacks and Hispanics than against people of other races."

Do you still want them fired on the spot? I mean, I don't mind, because they are terrible, although it would be pretty odd to finally kick them to curb for actually being accurate for once.

 

[Two Crows]

You said you had no idea where it came from. I told you. In this case, at least, Fox News happens to be right.

They were also right when they said "The study found that police were more than twice as likely to manhandle, beat or use some other kind of nonfatal force against blacks and Hispanics than against people of other races."

Do you still want them fired on the spot? I mean, I don't mind, because they are terrible, although it would be pretty odd to finally kick them to curb for actually being accurate for once.

Yes, see my previous post.

They are wrong on every point you've made. I'd imagine whoever tried to summarize the work has no background in higher statistics.

Also, can we get a mod to let me know how much of a copyrighted work I can copy & paste to the WR? It would be pretty simple to end this with a couple paragraphs here and there from the paper.

P.S. Why on earth do you think Fox is accurate on this? Have you read the paper?

 

[HOLA]

And Row A of Table 2 is NYC with no controls. Just like I wrote.
Literally; "Panel A: NYC Stop, Question, Frisk"

Who thought it was Houston is an idiot. The city is only mentioned as the largest divergence.

You're looking at the table for NON-LETHAL use of force, which, and I quote directly from his paper:

Blacks are 53% more likely to experience any use of force relative to a white mean of15.3 percent. The raw gap for Hispanics is almost identical.
The table for LETHAL use of force is from Houston, 2000-2015. This is where it says what chuds are celebrating this man for:

Blacks are 23.5 percent less likely to be shot by police, relative to whites, in an interaction. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likely to be shot...

 

[Two Crows]

You're looking at the table for NON-LETHAL use of force, which, and I quote directly from his paper:

Blacks are 53% more likely to experience any use of force relative to a white mean of15.3 percent. The raw gap for Hispanics is almost identical.
The table for LETHAL use of force is from Houston, 2000-2015. This is where it says what chuds are celebrating this man for:

Blacks are 23.5 percent less likely to be shot by police, relative to whites, in an interaction. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likely to be shot...

No, I looked at the table you cited in your Fox quote.

There are 11 tables (the final 11 pages of the paper) and there is no table that you describe.


Houston is supplemental, and the 4th data set I'll break down for you in the study.

Further, you are completely wrong if you think a single line is creating the controversy. His work shows a decrease in margin of difference between races as force escalation occurs. He even accounts for use of batons.

 

[HOLA]

Yes, see my previous post.

They are wrong on every point you've made. I'd imagine whoever tried to summarize the work has no background in higher statistics.

Also, can we get a mod to let me know how much of a copyrighted work I can copy & paste to the WR? It would be pretty simple to end this with a couple paragraphs here and there from the paper.

P.S. Why on earth do you think Fox is accurate on this? Have you read the paper?

Well, more of it than you, obviously.

V. Estimating Racial Di↵erences in Officer-Involved Shootings

That's page 25. The very first paragraph tells you this centers on Houston; furthermore, Table 4 (Lethal Use of Force), at the end...page 49 or so, says:

Notes: This table reports odds ratios from logistic regressions. The sample for each regression is displayed in the top row. For columns (1)-(3), the sample consistsof all officer involved shootings in Houston from 2000 - 2015, plus a random draw of all arrests for the following offenses, from 2000 - 2015: aggravated assault ona peace officer, attempted capital murder of a peace officer, resisting arrest, evading arrest, and interfering in an arrest. These arrests contain narratives from policereports. For columns (4)-(5), the sample consists of all officer involved shootings in Houston from 2000 - 2015, plus a sample of arrests where tasers were used. Thesearrests do not contain narratives from police reports. For columns (6)-(7), the sample combines all officer involved shootings in Houston from 2000 - 2015, plus arandom draw of all arrests for the following offenses, from 2000 - 2015: aggravated assault on a peace officer, attempted capital murder of a peace officer, resistingarrest, evading arrest, and interfering in an arrest, plus arrests where tasers were used.

 

[Two Crows]

Well, more of it than you, obviously.

V. Estimating Racial Di↵erences in Officer-Involved Shootings

That's page 25. The very first paragraph tells you this centers on Houston; furthermore, Table 4 (Lethal Use of Force), at the end...page 49 or so, says:

Notes: This table reports odds ratios from logistic regressions. The sample for each regression is displayed in the top row. For columns (1)-(3), the sample consistsof all officer involved shootings in Houston from 2000 - 2015, plus a random draw of all arrests for the following offenses, from 2000 - 2015: aggravated assault ona peace officer, attempted capital murder of a peace officer, resisting arrest, evading arrest, and interfering in an arrest. These arrests contain narratives from policereports. For columns (4)-(5), the sample consists of all officer involved shootings in Houston from 2000 - 2015, plus a sample of arrests where tasers were used. Thesearrests do not contain narratives from police reports. For columns (6)-(7), the sample combines all officer involved shootings in Houston from 2000 - 2015, plus arandom draw of all arrests for the following offenses, from 2000 - 2015: aggravated assault on a peace officer, attempted capital murder of a peace officer, resistingarrest, evading arrest, and interfering in an arrest, plus arrests where tasers were used.

Table 4 shows no data on white shootings.

You claimed it showed they were less likely to be shot.

Also, while we are here, can you even read that table? I'm trying to get an idea of how to explain things to you, so let's try one?

Take a look at table 4, Hispanic column, row (c).

What do you think those numbers mean? Don't just quote the citation, explain to me like you would a child.

I'll come back tomorrow and see what you come up with.

 

[HOLA]

No, I looked at the table you cited in your Fox quote.

There are 11 tables (the final 11 pages of the paper) and there is no table that you describe.

It's on page 49, Table 4. There's not a gray area here. It's the only thing on the page. Can't miss it.

Houston is supplemental, and the 4th data set I'll break down for you in the study.

Further, you are completely wrong if you think a single line is creating the controversy. His work shows a decrease in margin of difference between races as force escalation occurs. He even accounts for use of batons.

Yes, I just went over that.

 

[HOLA]

Table 4 shows no data on white shootings.

You claimed it showed they were less likely to be shot.

Also, while we are here, can you even read that table? I'm trying to get an idea of how to explain things to you, so let's try one?

Take a look at table 4, Hispanic column, row (c).

What do you think those numbers mean? Don't just quote the citation, explain to me like you would a child.

I'll come back tomorrow and see what you come up with.

Walk before you run. You still need to acquiesce to the fact that Houston is the place they are centering on for shootings in this extremely limited study, rather than worrying yourself over how someone would ELI5 odds ratios from logistic regressions. You can't obfuscate away from something so simple by pretending to suddenly be so wonkish.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

I knew you came across a curmudgeon, but I had no idea you've been around since 1918. Impressive, sir. I recommend dried prunes. It will help with your bowel movements and make you less grumpy. Godspeed, gramps.

You're going to pretend like I didn't say our community was the one that experienced that because you feel dumb?

We get that lefties only care about white on black racism and how the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow era still affects AA's till this day so I know you have the capacity to believe in the dumb shit you just posted, but rest assured, I was merely drawing a parallel to our communities experience in Canada to that of AAs in America.

And we don't let liberals make excuses for our people like you guys do blacks.

The depth and breadth of your knowledge of the U.S. experience never ceases to amaze me, Canadian.

Well, we clearly see the "depth and breadth" of your knowledge of the Canadian experience, dip shit.

 

[HOLA]

You're going to pretend like I didn't say our community was the one that experienced that because you feel dumb?

We get that lefties only care about white on black racism and how the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow era still affects AA's till this day so I know you have the capacity to believe in the dumb shit you just posted, but rest assured, I was merely drawing a parallel to our communities experience in Canada to that of AAs in America.

And we don't let liberals make excuses for our people like you guys do blacks.



Well, we clearly see the "depth and breadth" of your knowledge of the Canadian experience, dip shit.

Just pick yourself up by your bootstraps! Problems solved! Cool story...

OTTAWA, April 5 (Reuters) - Canada's federal government and a group of Indigenous people have reached a revised C$23.34 billion ($17.35 billion) agreement to compensate First Nations children and families for the decades of harm caused by a discriminatory welfare system.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Just pick yourself up by your bootstraps! Problems solved!

We did. Our community is pretty successful and we don't commit crime at wildly disproportionate rates.

Cool story...

No one was talking to you. Piss off.

 

[Ichibanner]

I watched that video last night. The Professor has my admiration. He saw what he thought was an issue within America concerning his race and police interaction.

Unlike NFL players making ludicrous amounts of money and "addressing" the concern in the laziest way possible (kneeling at work); he went on ride-alongs with LEO, gathered data, and came to a logical conclusion that he was wrong and that LEO's have an incredibly hard job.

He had the integrity to publish his findings despite warnings that this inconvenient truth and poking holes in "the narrative" would lead to negative consequences within his life and profession.

Dude is admirable for being so open-minded and for sticking to his beliefs, consequences be damned.

 

[Lucas1980]

Hola...just get schooled.

 

[spamking]

Hola...just get schooled.

This thread definitely took off after I last visited last night.

 

[nhbbear]

From 2015-2020, 135 unarmed black men and women were fatally shot by police. So I guess that doesn't even count someone like George Floyd, since he wasn't actually shot.

It is true that not every shooting of an unarmed person is unjustified. Sometimes there are valid reasons for it. But even as deferential as the courts are to cops, these shootings have still resulted in dozens of judgements and hundreds of millions in settlements.

I actually think they do include every death when they count the deaths-not just shootings. So Floyd was counted in 2020’s numbers. Again, I think one of these large, unbiased media(if you can find one) needs to look into every case. That, or there should be a federal agency that looks at all the facts of each shooting or death and says “this is/isn’t justified” so we can look at all the incidents and have an actual discussion. However, when you pointed out the settlements, that is not an accurate way of looking to see if it is justified or not. Many of these are “we did nothing wrong but agree that a total could be more costly than one million.”

For example, in my breakdown of many of the cases in my police use of force megathread, I often looked to see if there was any money exchanged. alton sterling, a pedo with a gun trying to pull it from his pocket, was shot in Baton Rouge in 2016 and his family got five million for a justified shooting of a justified piece of shit.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

You mean like you should have done immediately after realizing that the title of this thread has no relationship to the findings of the study in the op? Take the L you fuckin loser. The author of the study handed it to you personally.

Are you talking to yourself?

Just say "oh I was wrong. This was a sensational and misrepresented headline and I got duped because I'm a racist clown that rushed to conclusions not supported by the evidence"

Save yourself some time and embarrassment

So triggered you had to respond to the same post twice? Get some help bro.

 

[William Munny]

This thread definitely took off after I last visited last night.

yup, the left folk here have doubled down. and are not going to concede anything. they don't have the mental capacity to pivot when faced with new data.