Police Brutality and Shootings

Author: Buddamoose ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 65
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    Is it Racist? Is it Systemic or Widespread? Hopefully this will provide a general gauge. For the first premise, that it is racist, I will let the source speak for itself. The following is an excerpt from the first nationwide and systematic study on the role of race in police shootings done by Michigan State University and University of Maryland:

    "We found that the race of the officer doesn"t matter when it comes to predicting whether black or white citizens are shot," Cesario said. "If anything, black citizens are more likely to have been shot by black officers, but this is because black officers are drawn from the same population that they police. So, the more black citizens there are in a community, the more black police officers there are."

    The data show that it"s not racial bias on behalf of white officers relative to black officers when it comes to fatal shootings, and that"s good news. The bad news, Cesario said, is that internal policy changes, such as diversifying police forces, may not reduce shootings of minority citizens.

    Beyond officer race, the team drew other conclusions about details related to racial disparities in fatal officer shootings.

    "Many people ask whether black or white citizens are more likely to be shot and why. We found that violent crime rates are the driving force behind fatal shootings," Cesario said. "Our data show that the rate of crime by each racial group correlates with the likelihood of citizens from that racial group being shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of white people committing crimes, white people are more likely to be shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of black people committing crimes, black people are more likely to be shot. It is the best predictor we have of fatal police shootings."

    By connecting the findings of police officer race, victim race and crime rates, the research suggests that the best way to understand police shootings isn"t racial bias of the police officer; rather, by the exposure to police officers through crime.

    The vast majority " between 90% and 95% " of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot. Ninety percent also were armed with a weapon when they were shot. The horrific cases of accidental shootings, like mistaking a cell phone for a gun, are rare, Cesario said."

    ....

    As for whether it is widespread or systemic. The notion that police brutality is widespread and systematic is simply unsupported by data. Out of a study on large(100 or more officers) local and state law enforcement agencies the following was found:

    - There were 26,000 complaints regarding excessive use of force filed
    - Of these 8% were found to be sustained, or in other words, there was sufficient evidence to merit disciplinary action of an officer. Or 2,080.
    - 34% were unsustained, or in otherwords there was insufficient evidence present.
    - 25% were unfounded, or in other words, determined to not be factual, or to have not happened at all.
    - 23% were exonerated, or in other words, the incident was deemed to have occurred, but the officers actions were lawful.
    - 9% were other dispositons, such as withdrawing of the complaint.

    Even if we take it that 100% of exonerations should have been sustainments, for purposes of illustration, that still leaves us at just 31%, or a mere 8,060 valid complaints.

    80% of agencies supplied data, so if you extrapolate that out to 100%, you get 9,672 'valid' complaints.

    (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report; Law Enforcement Management and Administration Statistics; Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force; 2006)

    To put that into perspective, there were roughly 65 million people who had public-police interactions in 2015 with state and local law enforcement agencies, or in other words, .00014% of people who had an interaction with a police officer, experienced excessive use of force.

    (Bureau of Justice Statistics; Contacts between Police and Public; 2015)

    I'm failing to think of a realm where .00014% of something is a significant percentage point, particularly in realms like these, let alone widespread and systematic.

    Now let's look at citizens killed by police:

    - It is estimated that in 2015 roughly 1,900 individuals died in arrest related deaths.
    - Of these 64% were homicides. As in, insufficient or no evidence to conclude it was suicide(by cop), and the death was not accidental(ex: innocent bystanders)
    - 18% were suicide(by-cop)
    - 11% were accidental

    It is also important, this number does not hold bearing on whether these deaths were justified v non-justified. Take just the homicides and you end up with 1,216 deaths.

    Now refer back to that roughly 65 million interactions from previous. That's .0000018% of people involved in police interactions in any given year.

    Does any of this at all seem widespread and systemic yet?

    (Bureau of Justice Statistics; Arrest-Related Deaths Program Redesign Study; 2015-2016)

    The Number of arrests is also crucial to understanding the scope. In any given year, there are roughly 10,360, 960 arrests for all offenses.

    So deaths result .00013% of the time during an arrest.

    Of those arrests, a sustained or exonerated complaint of excessive force occurs .0009% of the time.


    It is important to note, that arrests only includes arrests. It does not include interactions where a criminal offense occurred, but no arrest was made. Such as typical traffic stops, many misdemeanor offenses, etc.

    (FBI Crime Statistics; fbi.gov)

    Is police brutality and killing something we should try to reduce as humanly possible? Yes, absolutely. Wrongful deaths are tragic, especially preventable ones. Is it widespread, no. Unless you would want to claim 1, 416 rotten oranges in a grove of 65 million+ oranges is a sign of a widespread rotting of the entire grove. Which would itself be farcically absurd to claim.

    People need to relearn how to gain perspective on issues, because the notions surrounding many issues entirely lack perspective. Perspective being crucial to understanding the magnitude by which we should respond to something.

    Protest? Absolutely, Floyd deserves justice and it appears that is being done. There ought be little issue getting a conviction of Murder 3 on Chauvin.

    Looting, rioting, beating and killing random people or people trying to defend their property, declaring the whole system is corrupt(and racist)? No, that is many orders of magnitude well above the magnitude of the issue itself.

    Understanding the magnitude of an issue is key to being able to identify the proper response, seek and isolate causal factors, and rectify them. If we act like the whole system is rotten as many are, then we are learning little of value because what changes should that system make if it is entirely corrupt? How should the next system be structured so as to mitigate the issue as much as possible? These are not truly answered and we are left with blindly guessing.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    this is a high effort post, good job
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Buddamoose
    wow, I mean wow, can I copy that and post it on my facebook?  that is one of the most epic posts in a long, long while, perhaps the #1 I can recall reading, thank you.

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Buddamoose
    To put that into perspective, there were roughly 65 million people who had public-police interactions in 2015 with state and local law enforcement agencies, or in other words, .00014% of people who had an interaction with a police officer, experienced excessive use of force.
    ok, but you are assuming that every time a cop harasses a person they file an official complaint. In most cases they are not going to do that. it might be too difficult or time consuming. They might be discouraged from filing it by other police. They might be threatened or intimidated into not filing them. They might just not do it because they know that no one will believe them and the police will do nothing about it. So pretending like the official records of documented cases is all the cases of systemic abuse is a little bit of a joke. 

    Not to mention that just because another cop said there was insufficient evidence, doesn't mean the cop didn't do it. We are talking about a systemic system where cops protect other cops. 
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 933
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    --> @Buddamoose
    Let me start off by saying I appreciate the high quality effort in your post which is far greater than the usual stupidity I see put in this forum by idiots I dont have any respect for. However, there are a couple counterpoints I want to make cause they immediately caught my attention when I first read through your post 

    1) "The vast majority " between 90% and 95% " of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot"

    Those numbers came from the police departments reported that the researchers asked for information. This is an issue because if individual cops fudge reports that people they fired on were actively attacking police or other citizens, then this study is taking those claims directly at face value directly from police departments. Part of the entire reason why the public vastly favors cops wearing cameras is because it keeps them honest since in the past cops have been shown to be dishonest, so that 90% to 95% number that police departments gave to the researchers is one I am very highly suspicious of. 

    Its also worth mentioning that the data the MSU research used for the study came from police departments that had already released that sort of information to the public, which is only a fraction of total PD's across the country and hardly a comprehensive total...... "Just 35 police departments participate in federal initiatives to track the number of fatal incidents today, out of 18,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies"....  https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwvv3a/shot-by-cops

    If we cant get any sort of accurate idea of how many people are actually shot by cops/have excessive force used against them in the US, then by extension we cant make any sort of reliable calculation about what actual percentage of police encounters end in a fatality or an improper action taken by a police officer such as excessive force, since Police Departments are flat out refusing to release that information for the most part. 



    2) "To put that into perspective, there were roughly 65 million people who had public-police interactions in 2015 with state and local law enforcement agencies, or in other words, .00014% of people who had an interaction with a police officer, experienced excessive use of force.

    Couple problems with that claim:

    First: You're applying the 2015 number of people who had interactions with the police with data that analyzed use of police force that was taken in 2002. The total number of cases about excessive force could have varied wildly in the 13 years between both points, so its kind of hard to quantify what the actual percentage of police encounters lead to excessive force

    Second: You pull this .00014% out of somewhere and I dont know where you got it...... If you're taking the theoretical 8,060 cases of actual excessive force and dividing that by the 65 million total encounter number,  then the total percentage is .0124%, which is about 100 times the number you put forward. And thats not taking into account that the 8,060 number could me much much higher since that 8,060 only comes from a mall percentage of PD's that have actually released statistics. 

    Third: Most importantly of all, if you look at Page 7 of the 2002 Excessive Force study you cite for your own evidence, it says in the methodology that only 11.5% of the 798large general purpose Police Departments disclosed data to the report about excessive force allegations. That 8,060 genuine number of excessive force cases could in fact be closer to 80,000 cases of excessive force, and thats if we DO assume that the rates are similar between PD's that do report their numbers with those that dont. If we go down the rabbit hole a little and suspect that maybe larger PD's that didnt disclose excessive force complaints stayed quiet because they have a large number of excessive force complaints they dont want to bring attention to, then the actual number of cases where officers use excessive force can be much higher than the 8 to 9 thousand you initially concede. 




    3) "I'm failing to think of a realm where .00014% of something is a significant percentage point"

    There's 2 responses I have to this: 

    1 - Its probably a lot higher than .00014% for reasons as previously mentioned

    2 - More importantly, Even if there are 99,999 good cops for every bad one, that doesnt disqualify implementing sensible reforms that could make that ratio even better just because 1 in 10,000 isnt that often. If putting cameras on officers reduces bad conduct even further and reduces chances of an incident leading to community outrage, then why not go for it? Especially since we dont have a clear picture what the real numbers actually are? 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @HistoryBuff
    You may have noticed, I included exonerated within the statistical analysis of valid complaints. Specifically because this it is a fair point that lying occurs. This is true of both sides of that equation though. 

    Now, even if we take it that all filed complaints were valid, that still leaves us with miniscule percentage points. Even if we double the total number of complaints, you are still left with a miniscule percentage point. 

    Otherwise, do you have a way to quantify the unknown? Because I dont, leaving such things as entirely conjecture based. 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @Imabench
    All that effort, all that writing just to not understand what the term imputed means...


    Here is the actual quote taken from that. Where you took data being imputed to mean that's all that was reported...

    "Some agencies did not report
    complaints data. Total complaints data
    were imputed for 92 (11.5%) of the 798
    large general purpose agencies."

    Imputed would mean to estimate, as in they estimated/extrapolated the data for 11.5% of those agencies. Which is actually lower than the generous 80% I rounded it down to.

    Now, i love some good conjecture now and again. But to the extent that you conjectured? No, especially since you are being so misleading about the sources of the information from the first study. That study also used information gathered from the WaPost and Guardian. Two agencies that actually got recognized for their work by being used as reference points in Bureau of Justice Statistics reports on this exact issue. They track the presence of weapons and firearms in incidents too. Are you really goingtgoing to claim the Guardian and WaPost are publications that are going to fudge information on behalf of police? 

    What do I mean by conjecture though? I mean you are bringing up points that are hardly quantifiable in a statistical analysis. 

    Ex: "The number could be way higher", why yes, it could. Does that mean it is? If so by how much? What evidence would you have to prove the veracity of any estimate you come up with? Etc. Ergo, conjecture. 


    Now, as for your math on the percentages. The thing about percentages, is if you multiple it by the total it was divided by, you get, depending on rounding, the result back or close to it. Multiple .0124 by 65 million buddy... you get 806,000... That is many orders of magnitude above the 8,060 that was the original number being divided by 65 million to get that percentage point. 

    Getting to your point that 2002 data is being used to compare to 2015 data... There's nothing else to really compare it to. Im not sure you realize that by discounting the statistical analysis in such a fashion, you are still left with little but conjecture on your end. Which is refuted simply by conjecturing in the inverse. 

    "I think its way higher than that." 

    "Well I think it's not." 

    Congrats, you've now eliminated any possibility of constructive analysis. Which is the distinct opposite act of someone seeking the truth on a matter. If you are not seeking truth, then why should we hold your view as true either? 

    Seems pretty self-defeating and just a result of being presented with analysis that doesn't fit with a notion that it's widespread and systemic, and like, totally rooted in racism. 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Thank you Cody, my apologies if you aren't the Franklin I'm thinking of lol. 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    Absolutely, I do not care that I'm the one saying it. I just care that these kinds of things are being said, instead of the conjecture ridden, fractured statistical analyses, emotionally charged discourse seen in so many places these days. 

    Might I suggest you add that if you take away incidents at the low end where the one who diedadied officers or civilians, which most would agree would be a justifiable shooting, you get 142. A number that is lower than the estimated amount of serial killings that occur yearly(150). Take that and apply that 24% of fatalities in arrest-related deaths are blacks, and you get 34... 

    Yet, we think there's a widespread issue of systemic proportions for police shootings, but are able to recognize that serial killings are extremely rare. 

    Good seeing you are still around btw Robert 👍. Oh, and that video is going over what I can only describe as unwitting agitprop rooted in 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    Also, Bench. For real with that stuff about, "even if you think there are 99,999 good cops for every bad one, that doesn't mean sensible reforms can be made" 


    What would make you think I don't think that too when my post ended with explicitly talking about perspective, and needing to place things in proper perspective to be able to gauge the proper response, identifying and seeking causal factors, and rectify them? 

    It can clearly be seen that there is widespread notion that the issue is widespread and systemic, and that it is rooted in racism. This is what this post is intended to address, so that we can maybe see the issue lies elsewhere. 

    Like maybe de-militarizing police forces, and establishing independent civilian review boards for citizen complaints of excessive force, for example. 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    "Now, as for your math on the percentages. The thing about percentages, is if you multiple it by the total it was divided by, you get, depending on rounding, the result back or close to it. Multiple .0124 by 65 million buddy... you get 806,000... That is many orders of magnitude above the 8,060 that was the original number being divided by 65 million to get that percentage point."

    To clarify on this, I was incorrect. The correct percentage is .0124%. I was spacing that you move the decimal two to the right to get the percentage. When multiplying the percentage to get the original result that was divided, you move it left two. My apologies, and thank you for pointing that out. I'm tired, it was 1am at the time, it took me a bit to realize I had a dum-dum moment with that one. 😆

    As for whether .0124% is a percentage point that is a sign of a widespread and systemic issue... Well refer back to the rotting fruit in a grove comparison. Would you declare that a grove where .0124% of the fruit is rotten, to be a sign of widespread rotting in the entire grove? 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    Might I suggest you add that if you take away incidents at the low end where the one who diedadied officers or civilians, which most would agree would be a justifiable shooting, you get 142

    *The one who died was attacking the officer(s) or a civilian(s)*

    it'd be great if this on mobile wasn't deleting words as I was typing them. Is that an issue on a PC too? 🤔
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Buddamoose
    You may have noticed, I included exonerated within the statistical analysis of valid complaints. Specifically because this it is a fair point that lying occurs. This is true of both sides of that equation though. 
    i did notice. but you only included that caveat in exonerated. all the other categories could have been the results of lying as well. "insufficient evidence" could easily be the cop in charge of investigating simply discounting evidence or not looking for it. 

    Now, even if we take it that all filed complaints were valid, that still leaves us with miniscule percentage points. Even if we double the total number of complaints, you are still left with a miniscule percentage point.
    ok. but that's like saying the only coughs that have ever happened in the world are the ones that are officially documented. You will probably find examples of people coughing that are documented, but since coughing is something that happens so frequently, it isn't usually documented. Arguing that the official reports of misconduct are, in any way, and accurate measure of the amount of misconduct is a bad joke. 

    Otherwise, do you have a way to quantify the unknown? Because I dont, leaving such things as entirely conjecture based. 
    This is the problem. The people committing the crimes (the cops) are also in charge of the taking statements, investigating, using force on people they don't like etc. There is no way to get an accurate count on the crimes they commit when they act as judge, jury, and it many cases executioner. There are no accurate stats.
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 933
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    --> @Buddamoose
    You gave a couple different posts in response so Ill try to summarize them all into one counter-response 

    ======================================================= For Argument #2 ========================================================

    "Total complaints data were imputed for 92 (11.5%) of the 798 large general purpose agencies"

    Fuck me for mistaking the word 'imputed' for the word 'inputted' which is evidently spelled with two T's rather than one like I thought for whatever reason (Input)

    My objections with under-reporting of instances of use of excessive force is withdrawn, sorry about that mishap XD. Ill focus on just the points about lethal shootings then


    ======================================================== For Argument #1 ===========================================================

    "That study also used information gathered from the WaPost and Guardian. Two agencies that actually got recognized for their work by being used as reference points in Bureau of Justice Statistics reports on this exact issue. They track the presence of weapons and firearms in incidents too. Are you really going to claim the Guardian and WaPost are publications that are going to fudge information on behalf of police"

    The two news agencies compiled the data that could be found for shootings of civilians, but its hardly a comprehensive list of all the instances there are lethal encounters with the police in the US...... After the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson Missouri, FBI director Comey began a new initiative to collects statistics from police departments about the number of civilians shot at by cops, since actual data that existed prior to that point was "Embarrassing"....  The federal initiative though is only followed by 35 police departments out of nearly 18,000. Which comes out to a whopping 0.195% that are revealing their numbers.....  https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwvv3a/shot-by-cops

    If the MSU study is claiming that officer diversity does not have any effect on the percentage of people shot by cops is based on numbers divulged by less than 0.2% of all police departments in the country, then that claim cant really be taken as accurate since it is based on such an incredible narrow set of data that could be far different then the actual picture. That other 99.8% of missing data could very easily indicate that racially diverse officers are far less likely to shoot civilians of the same or different race compared to white officers. 




    "The number [of cases where cops shoot civilians] could be way higher", why yes, it could. Does that mean it is? If so by how much? What evidence would you have to prove the veracity of any estimate you come up with?"

    1) Yes 
    2) Arguably by a factor of 500 since the total number of police departments that say how many civilians are shot at by cops is around 0.2% 
    3) On the basis that only a fraction of police departments (35 out of more than 18,000) divulge their numbers to either the public or the federal government which are the numbers that the MSU study uses as their whole field of analysis. 


    ==============================================================================================================================

    If I concede that instances of police brutality and use of excessive force is not a systematic/widespread problem, then perhaps the same can be said of instances of cops shooting civilians since use of firearms is pretty much an extension of using excessive force. Your initial post makes that arguement pretty well. 

    The racial element though is still up in the air. The excessive force study by the Justice Department does not divulge details about the race of the officers and the race of those who allege they were abused, while the MSU study is woefully unsubstantiated since their data comes from numbers divulged by just 0.2% of police department admissions about how much cops shoot civilians. 

    Systematic/widespread?..... Ill concede its probably not a systematic issue based on numbers by the Justice Department regarding instances of excessive force average out to like 0.124% of all civilian encounters with police.

    Racist?..... Thats still possible, since the set of reliable numbers from the Justice Department dont mention anything about race, while the MSU study does not have reliable numbers to base conclusions off of
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @HistoryBuff @Imabench
    "This is the problem though... There are no accurate stats." 

    Your argument, like Bench's, is distinctly the opposite of truth-seeking to the best of ones capabilities and a perfect example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good." 

    Your conjecture would apply unless there was absolutely perfect stat collecting from an agency you viewed as perfect. That is distinctly the opposite of truth-seeking. Why? 

    Because your positing leaves us, again, at entirely conjecture. You say the numbers could be higher, based off of conjecture, all that requires to refute is the inverse conjecture of, "well, they could not be."

    Congrats, burden of proof unfulfilled. Why? Because merely pointing out that a data set is imperfect does not itself prove that an issue is widespread and systemic, or rooted in racism, to conclude that said number should be higher. 

    That would be called putting the cart before the horse and really, circular reasoning. 

    Ex: I think the issue is widespread and systemic. The datasets are incomplete and therefore much higher, because the issue is widespread and systemic. 

    Now I will bring up again, are you seeking truth? Or are you merely seeking to discount that which would illustrate what you otherwise believe? Because for example, if you take this imperfect dataset, and conclude it is likely much higher because it is imperfect. Then the same is applicable to something like serial killings. Which, if you use the imperfect data can be shown to take more lives than police who kill those who were not attacking an officer or civilian at the time. 

    Then you must also believe that serial killings are likely wayyyy higher than that 150 as well. As that number is gotten by mostly imputing data, as opposed to imputing data for a minority of the dataset. 

    So why would you not act as if serial killings are one of the gravest threats facing people today? That they are rampant and widespread, as opposed to the typical and widely accepted notion they are an extremely rare occurrence? 

    Both of you need to realize that you are making non-arguments, and thus by the nature of being a non-arguments, only require a non-argument to refute. 

    You say, "well they could be higher" 
    I say, "well they could not be." 

    Congrats, we are now back at the default of "is not" and still not establishing "it is." Let alone to what quantifiable degree "it is." 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    As for the actual attempt at statistical analysis done using the vice article... You do understand that said fatal shooting information was leveraged with the Washington Post and Guardian compilations. Again, two resources that were de facto recognized for being so thorough by being used by the BJS in their special report on arrest-related deaths. So it was not using just information from .02% of agencies. It was using information that was collected independent of agencies voluntarily providing that information. That, is being entirely misleading and I would appreciate it if we avoided such sophistic tactics.

    To even try to compare Vice, which was analyzing shootings, both fatal and non-fatal, to a study that was just analyzing fatal shootings, is erroneous in itself. But let's entertain that. Of the largest 50 municipal departments, 4700 non-fatal shootings were found over a 7 year period. That works out to 671.43 yearly. Let's expand that to include the other 748 large local and state agencies. You get 502,229 non-fatal shootings. 

    But, and here is the kicker, why should we take this extrapolation as a fairly accurate gauge, when the original number was just from 6% of all large local and state agencies? Agencies that are located in the highest crime areas, with the highest prevalency of poverty. That is metropolitan areas. It could be higher, it could be lower. It's probably lower because the smaller you go, the less prevalent violent crime becomes, the less tense and on edge any given situation will be taken to be from the onset.Or, just because a dataset is incomplete, does not mean assessments cannot be drawn from it? 

    Especially when Vice could have gotten the race, sex, and years of experience of the officers involved, just the same as the MSU and UM study did.

    Yet, you seem to fail to ask, "why did they disclude that? They clearly were able to get information on the race of the one shot involved, why not the officer as well? Wouldn't that have been one of the most crucial pieces to determining whether the issue was rooted in racism? After all, it would be hard to conclude that it is, if most shootings, fatal or non-fatal, were racially homogenous."

    What might give us an indication of that though? Why, that MSU/UM study in conjunction with the realization that, as was pointed out in the article itself,

    "If anything, black citizens are more likely to have been shot by black officers, but this is because black officers are drawn from the same population that they police. So, the more black citizens there are in a community, the more black police officers there are.”

    As well as understanding that as police forces have become more diverse, to where the demographics of a given department are similar to the demographics of the area being policed, the rate of fatal shootings has been rising. Albeit, only to a negligible degree. Still, if race were the root of the issue, one would think the inverse would be occuring, if still only to a negligible degree.

    For that matter, why did the Washington Post or Guardian disclude those statistics as well in their reportings? Instead, they go the route of  the typical sophistic and fractured analyses tactic that is missing crucial variables of, "X occurs disproportionally to blacks. Therefore it is race that is at the root of the problem." 

    And this where understanding that disproportionalities  donot give a gauge of cause, motive, or even that any inherent wrongdoing is being committed to create that disproportionality, comes into play. To point out a disproportionality, is merely to point out a disproportionality. 

    If you believe that isn't the case, then perhaps the following might change your mind, because:

    Did you know black males aged 16-40 commit 50% of the murders in the US yearly? That works out to about 7,500 out of the roughly 15,000 murders. Or 4-6% of the population committing 50%. You will also find similar disproportionalities present in other forms of violent crime, and property crimes. Clearly, this is evidence that blacks have a natural prevalence towards violent behavior and property crimes, right?

    No? Good, I agree, to draw that assessment would require the inclusion of other variables to gauge whether other explanations may be more in line with explaining why this may be the case. Things like poverty, absence of nuclear family structure(mother + father both present in the home), prevalency of mental illness, etc. Now how about we apply this thought equally elsewhere?

     
    Just like to conclude that police shootings, fatal and non-fatal, would require the inclusion of variables such as the prevalency of violent and property crime in a given area, the prevalency of poverty, the race, sex, and years of experience of the officer, the prevalency of mental illness, etc.  

    None of these things the linked vice article accounts for. So to present it as some form of evidence that conclusions can with a fair amount of accuracy be drawn from, while discounting the others because they are incomplete, is dissonant beyond belief. When one is actually accounting for those variables to conclude race is not the predominant issue at play, while the other is not and merely points out a disproportionality as evidence that it is. 

    Speaking of dissonance, I will refer back to the dissonance of effectively arguing that because a dataset is incomplete, conclusions cannot be drawn from it. While taking an incomplete and fractured dataset that is not factoring crucial variables, is analyzing non-fatal as opposed to fatal, and drawing conclusions from it. Let alone that the percentage point used to state it is incomplete, and therefore unusable, is misleading and hingent upon ignoring the leveraging of other databases in conjunction with that incomplete dataset. 

    It's basically rooted in holding that trends seen in one area where a dataset is incomplete to an unquantifiable degree, cannot be used to extend those trends to the whole and draw conclusions using relevant variables. Then turning right around and saying that a trend in this area, using an incomplete dataset that doesn't factor crucial variables in it's analysis to any effective degree, can be used to draw conclusions from.  

    Sorry, but where I come from, rules for thee, are also rules for me. If you wish to discount the presented evidence because it is incomplete, then you must also discount your evidence, because it is not only incomplete, it is not even bothering to factor in relevant variables necessary to determining cause. 

    It boils back down to being the same self-defeating point as conjecturing on the unquantifiable. 
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 933
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    god dammit did my post not fucking go through after all that

    fuck AT&T seriously 
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    more analysis
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Buddamoose
    no lol
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Buddamoose
    Your argument, like Bench's, is distinctly the opposite of truth-seeking to the best of ones capabilities and a perfect example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good."
    what? no. My arguement is that those stats are missing a HUGE swath of the problem for reasons I have already explained. It isn't that I am looking for perfect information. I am saying that even remotely accurate stats do not exist. You are using data that isn't even remotely accurate to try to argue there is not problem. 

    Basically the TLDR version of your post is that massively flawed stats exist, since there are no accurate stats we should just assume the stats we know are wrong are actually right. That is ridiculous. 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,178
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @HistoryBuff
    My arguement is that those stats are missing a HUGE swath of the problem for reasons I have already explained


    Yes, one reason actually. That it is systemic and widespread. But it's circular reasoning, the issue is systemic and widespread and therefore the numbers are vastly underreported because it is systemic and widespread. 

    Honestly, if you still arent getting your point is self-defeating, because it is conjecture that need only be refuted by inverse conjecturing. Then idk what else to tell you bud except you are acting cult-like in your adamancy that it couldn't possibly be anything other than what you claim it is.

    "We know the number is way higher?" No, actually we don't. But just as in the beginning when you posited this, if you have any way ofF quantifying the unknown so we may all see how much more extreme it is, then please do.  Otherwise, again, it is conjecture that is refuted by inverse conjecturing. 
     
    My guess is you think blacks are being killed at ridiculous rates too right? Yep, all 10 unarmed ones in 2019. So ridiculous. 

    As for that TLDR. No, my position is more, the statistics may or may not be accurate, but we do not know to which degree. So we reasonably mitigate by boosting the number by including exonerations with sustaineds. Than, and here's the kicker. I re-extrapolated to a greater degree, already imputed data. The original unreported that was imputed was 11.5%. I dropped it back down to 80, and did it again. So not only did I boost the numbers by an additional 30+%, but then followed it up by boosting it another 20%.

    From this, we can draw more than reasonable conclusions that ought satisfy people with exactly your complaints, and make a reasonable conclusion how serious and widespread the issue actually is. But sure bud, my position was totally that we should 100% trust the data despite taking multiple steps to mitigate and account for the human element of lying. Which is present on both sides of that accounting, mind you. 

    But yet again, like I said, you are illustrating a classic example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good." 

    Nice try on the TLDR though, you might want to actually analyze the data yourself to discover whether the person who is supplying it wasn't mitigating it already, as in, was not taking it as perfect, to a significant degree. To where if I tried presenting this to an actual statistician, they would roast the soul out of me for ballooning the numbers that much.  
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Buddamoose
    Yes, one reason actually. That it is systemic and widespread. But it's circular reasoning, the issue is systemic and widespread and therefore the numbers are vastly underreported because it is systemic and widespread. 

    Honestly, if you still arent getting your point is self-defeating, because it is conjecture that need only be refuted by inverse conjecturing. Then idk what else to tell you bud except you are acting cult-like in your adamancy that it couldn't possibly be anything other than what you claim it is.
    The argument is that there is systemic racism. If that is true then the records are obviously flawed because the people keeping the records are part of the problem.  So whether or not systemic racism exists, those records would say the same thing. You want to use those records to argue that there is no systemic racism. That is completely pointless. 
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @HistoryBuff

    read the studies they link


    again look at the actual facts.

    but for arguments sake lets assume the values should be double what is reported, that's still pretty low numbers contextually speaking.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    but for arguments sake lets assume the values should be double what is reported, that's still pretty low numbers contextually speaking.
    those studies are only about deaths. That is one part of the problem, sure. But the problem goes way, way deeper than that. Police can harass and do alot of damage to black people without killing them. 

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @HistoryBuff
    the riots and looters are doing it under the guise of police killings, this is the false narritive b.l.m. rose from.