Havard study debunks black shooting narrative

[seanD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/up...shootings.html

His "surprise" seems to suggest he was conducting the study with a different expectation in mind. The fact blacks are treated differently in general could easily be explained by the fact blacks commit more crimes statistically, thus police departments are responding according to the data. Or perhaps it's a cultural thing -- blacks are more belligerent when they come in contact with police, thus are treated worse. So the idea we THINK blacks are getting shot more is apparently purely media brainwashing.

[rogue06]

His "surprise" seems to suggest he was conducting the study with a different expectation in mind. The fact blacks are treated differently in general could easily be explained by the fact blacks commit more crimes statistically, thus police departments are responding according to the data. Or perhaps it's a cultural thing -- blacks are more belligerent when they come in contact with police, thus are treated worse. So the idea we THINK blacks are getting shot more is apparently purely media brainwashing.

Did this study agree with the previous ones that found that whites are more likely to be shot and killed in a confrontation with police? If so why is that not considered racial bias?

[MaxVel]

Now that racist activist groups are actually putting police lives in danger, perhaps we will see an increase in the number of blacks shot by police...?

[Sparko]

I dont trust studies no matter what they end up saying. They can be so easily manipulated. Like determining who is "black" - if a hispanic is shot by the police, they could be considered "black" but if a hispanic person shoots a black person, he could be considered "white" (like in the Trayvon Martin case)

[Cow Poke]

Now that racist activist groups are actually putting police lives in danger, perhaps we will see an increase in the number of blacks shot by police...?

Or, more deaths or serious injuries to police because they're trying even harder to show restraint.

[rogue06]

Now that racist activist groups are actually putting police lives in danger, perhaps we will see an increase in the number of blacks shot by police...?

What seems to be happening is they're pulling back in many areas. Then the professional activists will start screaming racism because the police aren't enforcing the laws in predominantly black areas as energetically as they do in predominantly white areas. When they return to policing the areas more strictly the same crowd will start protesting that the police are picking on blacks.


It is a vicious cycle and one I've seen many times over the years.

[Cow Poke]

What seems to be happening is they're pulling back in many areas. Then the professional activists will start screaming racism because the police aren't enforcing the laws in predominantly black areas as energetically as they do in predominantly white areas. When they return to policing the areas more strictly the same crowd will start protesting that the police are picking on blacks.


It is a vicious cycle and one I've seen many times over the years.

yeah

[seanD]

I dont trust studies no matter what they end up saying. They can be so easily manipulated. Like determining who is "black" - if a hispanic is shot by the police, they could be considered "black" but if a hispanic person shoots a black person, he could be considered "white" (like in the Trayvon Martin case)

That's because with most studies, researchers have a particular bias. In this case, it looks pretty unbiased. He probably did everything he could to get different numbers or at least made sure all variables were considered.

[Cow Poke]

That's because with most studies, researchers have a particular bias. In this case, it looks pretty unbiased. He probably did everything he could to get different numbers or at least made sure all variables were considered.

Yeah, I'm not as suspicious when they find a different result than they were hoping for, and still publish it.

[seanD]

Yeah, I'm not as suspicious when they find a different result than they were hoping for, and still publish it.

I think that's probably the only time we could ever be sure a study is accurate and factual. In a lot of cases, researchers are allowed to "adjust" the data to get the results they want.

[Cow Poke]

I think that's probably the only time we could ever be sure a study is accurate and factual. In a lot of cases, researchers are allowed to "adjust" the data to get the results they want.

Well, yeah, unless somebody wanted to be cute, and pretended to be surprised by their finding -- a reverse psychology kind of thing, I guess. But among scholars and serious researchers, that probably would be easy to detect.

[seanD]

I'm wondering if people are carefully reading the OP. Some of the earlier posts don't make much sense to me in relation to the OP.

[seanD]

This was too hilarious for me to ignore...

Notice (at about 5:00 in) how Don cites the Harvard study when he thought it worked in his favor, yet to his surprise Clarke also knew about the study. So when Clarke brought up the fact that that same study debunked the myth about black police shootings, all of a sudden Don turned around and dismissed the study that he had just cited

[Sparko]

This was too hilarious for me to ignore...

Notice (at about 5:00 in) how Don cites the Harvard study when he thought it worked in his favor, yet to his surprise Clarke also knew about the study. So when Clarke brought up the fact that that same study debunked the myth about black police shootings, all of a sudden Don turned around and dismissed the study that he had just cited

Clarke Pwned him. That was a great "interview"