Harvard study: no racial differences in police shootings

[huskerfan2000]

Found this on another site and thought I would share it here.. not that it would matter to some people.

 

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7833

 

 

Blacks were actually slightly less likely to be shot at by police officers, though they did face a higher amount of non-lethal force, such as tazing.

A recently released Harvard study suggests there’s no racial bias in police shootings.

The study—which was released on Monday in the aftermath of the shooting deaths of two black males and five Dallas, Texas police officers—is said by the author to be “the most surprising result” of his career, according to Lifezette.

 

[84HuskerLaw]

I am sure this doesn't fit the agenda of the left so it will be ignored even if done by a liberal at a liberal school. Surprising they would even allow this to be published.

[Red Dead Redemption]

Time for another beer summit?

[zoogs]

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

 

The New York Times inaccurately reported an unvetted working paper as a Harvard study that disproved the claim black people are shot by police at a higher rate than whites.

There you go. Snopes does a pretty thorough job here in its coverage.

[NM11046]

You guys are ridiculous. Why wouldn't this matter or not matter to "some" people? Did you ever think that perhaps the way you communicate your ideas and comments is what turns people off, not the actual content? You're both combative.

 

Now, regarding the "study" it was 10 departments looked at in only 3 states. In the medical/scientific world we'd say that the study wasn't powered to show a statistically significant outcome. The numbers are just too small. How many actual incidents did they analyze? Was it taken from police reports alone? Wouldn't that make the data less than objective? If it's a good dataset that information should be readily available.

 

I'd be interested in the data being compiled on a larger scale across the US. I think the information that would come out of that would be important. It would also uncover if there are states or cities in particular that perform better than or worse than the national average and that too would be important to know as we look to identify how to go about solving this issue, if indeed it's determined by the data that there is one. Looking at information like this takes the emotion out of it, and allows conclusions to be made based on fact alone. It's why allowing the CDC or another entity to collect and analyze shooting information is so very important.

[huskerfan2000]

 

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

 

The New York Times inaccurately reported an unvetted working paper as a Harvard study that disproved the claim black people are shot by police at a higher rate than whites.

There you go. Snopes does a pretty thorough job here in its coverage.

 

 

 

Well, that settles it.. snopes says it is false. Snopes, one of the more liberal sites, quickly tries to disprove this study by saying it was unvetted.. Not the least bit surprised

[NM11046]

edited by me - dupe.

[NM11046]

Here is perhaps a more fair look at a dataset - 18 different sources, academic studies, legal rulings and in depth reporting. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

[zoogs]

saying it was unvetted

 

Is this inaccurate?

 

"Well, that settles it" describes one of the attitudes in this thread, by the way.

[NM11046]

 

 

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

 

The New York Times inaccurately reported an unvetted working paper as a Harvard study that disproved the claim black people are shot by police at a higher rate than whites.

There you go. Snopes does a pretty thorough job here in its coverage.

 

 

 

Well, that settles it.. snopes says it is false. Snopes, one of the more liberal sites, quickly tries to disprove this study by saying it was unvetted.. Not the least bit surprised

 

Any truly scientific information has to be vetted and peer reviewed. Otherwise anybody can create numbers that prove what they want to show. So it may not be false, but it takes more than a week to do a proper trial and get it reviewed and published. The fact that this guy started the paper in the last few weeks is itself telling.

[Savage Husker]

This also shares some thought behind Fryers study, compared to a study that (edit: finishing sentence) was released last year by a PhD student.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/07/roland_fryer_s_new_paper_came_to_the_opposite_conclusion_as_a_paper_last.html

 

Snopes is saying that it isn't a "Harvard" study because it's not "vetted." Doesn't mean that the statistics and research isn't accurate. Also, as the Slate article mentions, Fryers subset was from Houston, and a different county could turn up different results.

[NM11046]

This also shares some thought behind Fryers study, compared to a study that (edit: finishing sentence) was released last year by a PhD student.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/07/roland_fryer_s_new_paper_came_to_the_opposite_conclusion_as_a_paper_last.html

 

Snopes is saying that it isn't a "Harvard" study because it's not "vetted." Doesn't mean that the statistics and research isn't accurate. Also, as the Slate article mentions, Fryers subset was from Houston, and a different county could turn up different results.

 

I think you misunderstood - indeed it's been written by a Harvard Econ professor but the reason it's not valid yet is it is a "Working Paper" and because it's only a working paper (meaning he's penned it but there's been no peer review or analysis of his data) makes it not yet valuable to those who want clean data or who truly want to statistically see a trend. Might prove to be totally on point, but honestly I can't imagine a peer review wouldn't ask for a larger dataset reflective of the real population at a minimum.

[Savage Husker]

 

This also shares some thought behind Fryers study, compared to a study that (edit: finishing sentence) was released last year by a PhD student.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/07/roland_fryer_s_new_paper_came_to_the_opposite_conclusion_as_a_paper_last.html

Snopes is saying that it isn't a "Harvard" study because it's not "vetted." Doesn't mean that the statistics and research isn't accurate. Also, as the Slate article mentions, Fryers subset was from Houston, and a different county could turn up different results.

 

I think you misunderstood - indeed it's been written by a Harvard Econ professor but the reason it's not valid yet is it is a "Working Paper" and because it's only a working paper (meaning he's penned it but there's been no peer review or analysis of his data) makes it not yet valuable to those who want clean data or who truly want to statistically see a trend. Might prove to be totally on point, but honestly I can't imagine a peer review wouldn't ask for a larger dataset reflective of the real population at a minimum.

seriously...did you read my post and the article provided or did you see something and just post to post? You reiterated nearly the same verbiage that I typed.

[NM11046]

 

 

This also shares some thought behind Fryers study, compared to a study that (edit: finishing sentence) was released last year by a PhD student.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/07/roland_fryer_s_new_paper_came_to_the_opposite_conclusion_as_a_paper_last.html

Snopes is saying that it isn't a "Harvard" study because it's not "vetted." Doesn't mean that the statistics and research isn't accurate. Also, as the Slate article mentions, Fryers subset was from Houston, and a different county could turn up different results.

I think you misunderstood - indeed it's been written by a Harvard Econ professor but the reason it's not valid yet is it is a "Working Paper" and because it's only a working paper (meaning he's penned it but there's been no peer review or analysis of his data) makes it not yet valuable to those who want clean data or who truly want to statistically see a trend. Might prove to be totally on point, but honestly I can't imagine a peer review wouldn't ask for a larger dataset reflective of the real population at a minimum.

seriously...did you read my post and the article provided or did you see something and just post to post? You reiterated nearly the same verbiage that I typed.

 

My bad - obviously I misunderstood your post. Seriously.

[huKSer]

Why would anyone trust a study from Harvard, Nebraska?