Shooting in USA-thread. (15 Viewers)

[GordoDeCentral]

That makes no sense.

First of all it acknowledges blacks are more likely to encounter police force. And not by a small amount. 50% ffs.

But then it completely disregards that when looking at shootings. Imagine you're 30 and the cops have been annoying you because you were black since you were 12. Obviously the odds of you disrespecting a cop at some point are going to be high. And when you do you get shot.

Also, if we say blacks are simply involved in more violent crime it makes sense that they are less likely to get shot. When the figures rise, the percent of fatalities will go down.

These are nonsensical considerations imo went would a cop mistreat a 12 yo black kid, you can just say hey i don't live in the US i really don't know enough of what goes on there.

The study, as acknowledged by the author himself, has important limitations. One that is not mentioned is that it's the data of people being shot "before attacking an officer". The data is police generated, based entirely on police reports. This is a huge limitation to reliability of the data because officers anyway claim that they were attacked and that they were trying to defend themselves, and if the person shot is dead, if there's no evidence, you have to believe them. There have been cases in which the officers were later revealed to have lied because somebody had filmed the incident. But do you know what the data suggests if we take it as it is? That police officers are equally likely to feel that their life is at risk when confronting a black (versus a white) person, hence an equal shooting likelihood. It should naturally remove all the sympathy towards police for being more afraid of black people on the basis of their criminal history and likelihood, right? So although they don't think their life is in greater danger, they still use excessive force more frequently on blacks than on whites. Besides, police brutality (which was the subject of my input here in this thread) isn't only shooting (i mentioned Eric Garner's example a few times). It's use of severe force, and as evident by this data is likely to be racially motivated.

Not blacks, but inner city, so could be Latino or white trash. The issue here is that in urban areas most of the people inhabiting slums are black and so the toxic environment created the toxic culture.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.wsj.com/articles/time-to-end-the-demonizing-of-police-1468363042

God bless the police

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[king Ale]

These are nonsensical considerations imo went would a cop mistreat a 12 yo black kid, you can just say hey i don't live in the US i really don't know enough of what goes on there.



Not blacks, but inner city, so could be Latino or white trash. The issue here is that in urban areas most of the people inhabiting slums are black and so the toxic environment created the toxic culture.

I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I don't understand what you're saying.

You said numbers dispel the claim that police ought to fear blacks, it's not blacks that they fear.

 

[IliveForJuve]

Numbers don't lie.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Tyt

 

[king Ale]

You said numbers dispel the claim that police ought to fear blacks, it's not blacks that they fear.

That's what i said and the data you posted supports.

Also, another thing i don't understand about the data is that why comparison between whites and blacks in the first part of the results changes to a comparison between blacks and non-blacks in the second part.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

That's what i said and the data you posted supports.

Also, another thing i don't understand about the data is that why comparison between whites and blacks in the first part of the results changes to a comparison between blacks and non-blacks in the second part.

Ok now go back to post you didn't understand.

 

[IliveForJuve]

X is a closet racist

 

[GordoDeCentral]

X has no time for intellectually irrelevant people

 

[IliveForJuve]

*sigh* you know what they say about people who call others stupid...

Anyway, carry on. I won't derail this thread.

 

[king Ale]

Ok now go back to post you didn't understand.

And you go back to the post you quoted. I said in my initial post what you say you said in your reply. I said this data suggests police is not afraid of blacks (unlike what many say here and everywhere, sympathizing with police by saying that the criminal and violent records of blacks naturally make them scarier to the police). This data shows that the argument in bold is bs.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

And you go back to the post you quoted. I said in my initial post what you say you said in your reply. I said this data suggests police is not afraid of blacks (unlike what many say here and everywhere, sympathizing with police by saying that the criminal and violent records of blacks naturally make them scarier to the police). This data shows that the argument in bold is bs.

The post you don't understand explains the amalgam. In urban areas where you get the most media exposure, most people who love in inner cities are black, hence the amalgam. The data interpretation varies depending on how many elements you include in your picture.

 

[king Ale]

The post you don't understand explains the amalgam. In urban areas where you get the most media exposure, most people who love in inner cities are black, hence the amalgam. The data interpretation varies depending on how many elements you include in your picture.

No, it should not.

Of course there are so many latent elements, and no data can include them all, but neither should your interpretation. Data is based on a limited set of measurable elements. Your interpretation should be based on the measured elements only AND an acknowledgement for the variables that you know exist but you couldn't measure (but no conclusion that is based on them). Like I said, the biggest flaw with this data is that it is police generated, and since we talk shooting and fatal shooting no evidence exists except what the police officer says.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

No, it should not.

Of course there are so many latent elements, and no data can include them all, but neither should your interpretation. Data is based on a limited set of measurable elements. Your interpretation should be based on the measured elements only AND an acknowledgement for the variables that you know exist but you couldn't measure (but no conclusion that is based on them). Like I said, the biggest flaw with this data is that it is police generated, and since we talk shooting and fatal shooting no evidence exists except what the police officer says.

What lol nonsense, context is everything numbers are just numbers without it, and I'm saying your take on it is based on an incomplete context.

 

[king Ale]

What lol nonsense, context is everything numbers are just numbers without it, and I'm saying your take on it is based on an incomplete context.

This is not nonsense, this is if you care to do proper research.

You try to include in your model as many contextual variables as possible (those that you suspect are relevant to the question you ask). Then whatever result you obtain should be interpreted on the basis of what you collected, with an acknowledgement for the variables you couldn't measure for whatever reason. That's why we don't prove anything with any data, we can only say at most that we couldn't find enough evidence to reject what we hypothesized. I don't say that the unmeasured contextual variables don't matter, they do, i'm saying if they are absent in your model all you can say is that "hey, my interpretation of this data is without having taken into account x and y and z variables, so be careful when reading what i've found."

 

[Enron]

Oh snap.

[MENTION]Dru[/MENTION]

 

[GordoDeCentral]

This is not nonsense, this is if you care to do proper research.

You try to include in your model as many contextual variables as possible (those that you suspect are relevant to the question you ask). Then whatever result you obtain should be interpreted on the basis of what you collected, with an acknowledgement for the variables you couldn't measure for whatever reason. That's why we don't prove anything with any data, we can only say at most that we couldn't find enough evidence to reject what we hypothesized. I don't say that the unmeasured contextual variables don't matter, they do, i'm saying if they are absent in your model all you can say is that "hey, my interpretation of this data is without having taken into account x and y and z variables, so be careful when reading what i've found."

Excellent, now a simple yes or no question, was the conclusion you came to the one initially intented when formulating the initial contextual variables?

Btw the question is rhetorical, i know it's not, therefore nonsense.

 

[king Ale]

Excellent, now a simple yes or no question, was the conclusion you came to the one initially intented when formulating the initial contextual variables?

Btw the question is rhetorical, i know it's not, therefore nonsense.

What conclusion?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

What conclusion?

cops are afraid of blacks, that was never the intent of the research nor was it of the parameters used for said research. So it's all your interpretation based on what you know.

 

[king Ale]

cops are afraid of blacks, that was never the intent of the research nor was it of the parameters used for said research. So it's all your interpretation based on what you know.

What are you talking about? When did I say cops are afraid of blacks?!

This is what I said:

The study, as acknowledged by the author himself, has important limitations. One that is not mentioned is that it's the data of people being shot "before attacking an officer". The data is police generated, based entirely on police reports. This is a huge limitation to reliability of the data because officers anyway claim that they were attacked and that they were trying to defend themselves, and if the person shot is dead, if there's no evidence, you have to believe them. There have been cases in which the officers were later revealed to have lied because somebody had filmed the incident. But do you know what the data suggests if we take it as it is? That police officers are equally likely to feel that their life is at risk when confronting a black (versus a white) person, hence an equal shooting likelihood. It should naturally remove all the sympathy towards police for being more afraid of black people on the basis of their criminal history and likelihood, right? So although they don't think their life is in greater danger, they still use excessive force more frequently on blacks than on whites. Besides, police brutality (which was the subject of my input here in this thread) isn't only shooting (i mentioned Eric Garner's example a few times). It's use of severe force, and as evident by this data is likely to be racially motivated.

Some people say cops are afraid of blacks because of their crime frequency, I said this data suggests it's not true.