Harvard study: no racial differences in police shootings

[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.

My bad - obviously I misunderstood your post. Seriously.

sorry, I came off like an ass. World events are pretty effed and sad, plus idiots running a golf course this morning have me a little on edge.

[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.

sorry, I came off like an ass. World events are pretty effed and sad, plus idiots running a golf course this morning have me a little on edge.

 

No sweat - I find that in the Politics forum I tend to read everything as if it's written sarcastically and sometimes I miss the mark. I agree with you that the world is F'd up. I haven't had the tv on in a week - I just can't handle 24/7 negativity and depressing events. I check in on occasion so that I'm aware but all that's going on drains me.

[JJ 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.

My bad - obviously I misunderstood your post. Seriously.

sorry, I came off like an ass. World events are pretty effed and sad, plus idiots running a golf course this morning have me a little on edge.

No sweat - I find that in the Politics forum I tend to read everything as if it's written sarcastically and sometimes I miss the mark. I agree with you that the world is F'd up. I haven't had the tv on in a week - I just can't handle 24/7 negativity and depressing events. I check in on occasion so that I'm aware but all that's going on drains me.

That's pretty much me with the news anymore. I just don't watch it, unless somebody here on HB posts that something major has happened then I might check it out. I literally would have had no idea about the events in Dallas if it hadn't been posted here. And I can't say as I miss it at all. It's all bad news anymore and if I don't know about it I am generally happier. Most nights my wife wants to watch the 9 or 10pm news....I simply have no desire to see it. Used to be a huge news junkie but no longer.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

[Moiraine]

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

 

Exactly, which doesn't mean that this applies to law enforcement nation wide. Nation wide studies might show something different.

[NM11046]

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

 

Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

 

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

 

Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.

 

NM, I think we should refrain from accusing police officers of mischaracterizing the accounts of the events of a situation in their police reports. In fact, if you look at it from the view that these reports describe a thread of biased use of force toward African Americans by police officers in these 10 precincts, I would argue there is no need to assume inaccurate reporting.

 

Also, thank you for bringing some balance to this discussion, BRI. We should be reserved in our indictment of all members of our law enforcement community based on this singular study. We should also thank you and all other members of this community for your sacrifices and service. I think the root of this discussion, or more so the national discussion, is to identify a situation in which a group within our society feel disenfranchised and experience intolerance by individuals in positions of power based on their race. I think there are specific individuals that propagate this bias, and are the root of the issue, rather than a systemic bias.

[NM11046]

 

 

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

 

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.

NM, I think we should refrain from accusing police officers of mischaracterizing the accounts of the events of a situation in their police reports. In fact, if you look at it from the view that these reports describe a thread of biased use of force toward African Americans by police officers in these 10 precincts, I would argue there is no need to assume inaccurate reporting.

 

Also, thank you for bringing some balance to this discussion, BRI. Would should be reserved in our indictment of all members of our law enforcement community based on this singular study. We should also thank you and all other members of this community for your sacrifices and service. I think the root of this discussion, or more so the national discussion, is to identify a situation in which a group within our society feel disenfranchised and experience intolerance by individuals in positions of power based on their race. I think there are specific individuals that propagate this bias, and are the root of the issue, rather than a systemic bias.

I have no idea how you took away that I was accusing police officers of misconstruing anything. Farthest from the truth and honestly I take offense to your suggesting that I felt that way. All I said was that looking at a police report after the fact is subjective, and without objective measurements and criteria (in place in advance) the data would vary from person to person and from station to station. What one cop might include in a report is different than what another might include. Different local requirements, different training - there are a zillion things that would make what you write up and what I write up different. We don't know how they defined use of force for instance - that too would be subjective unless there was uniformity as to defining what that means. At NO time did I incenuate that are officers are misreporting or misconstruing anything, and I didn't need a call out from you.

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.

NM, I think we should refrain from accusing police officers of mischaracterizing the accounts of the events of a situation in their police reports. In fact, if you look at it from the view that these reports describe a thread of biased use of force toward African Americans by police officers in these 10 precincts, I would argue there is no need to assume inaccurate reporting.

 

Also, thank you for bringing some balance to this discussion, BRI. Would should be reserved in our indictment of all members of our law enforcement community based on this singular study. We should also thank you and all other members of this community for your sacrifices and service. I think the root of this discussion, or more so the national discussion, is to identify a situation in which a group within our society feel disenfranchised and experience intolerance by individuals in positions of power based on their race. I think there are specific individuals that propagate this bias, and are the root of the issue, rather than a systemic bias.

I have no idea how you took away that I was accusing police officers of misconstruing anything. Farthest from the truth and honestly I take offense to your suggesting that I felt that way. All I said was that looking at a police report after the fact is subjective, and without objective measurements and criteria (in place in advance) the data would vary from person to person and from station to station. What one cop might include in a report is different than what another might include. Different local requirements, different training - there are a zillion things that would make what you write up and what I write up different. We don't know how they defined use of force for instance - that too would be subjective unless there was uniformity as to defining what that means. At NO time did I incenuate that are officers are misreporting or misconstruing anything, and I didn't need a call out from you.

 

 

Tom, I actually think if you read her prior post again, she was not disagreeing with what BRI stated, but drilling down a bit. I see no accusations within her prior post.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

 

 

 

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.

NM, I think we should refrain from accusing police officers of mischaracterizing the accounts of the events of a situation in their police reports. In fact, if you look at it from the view that these reports describe a thread of biased use of force toward African Americans by police officers in these 10 precincts, I would argue there is no need to assume inaccurate reporting.

 

Also, thank you for bringing some balance to this discussion, BRI. Would should be reserved in our indictment of all members of our law enforcement community based on this singular study. We should also thank you and all other members of this community for your sacrifices and service. I think the root of this discussion, or more so the national discussion, is to identify a situation in which a group within our society feel disenfranchised and experience intolerance by individuals in positions of power based on their race. I think there are specific individuals that propagate this bias, and are the root of the issue, rather than a systemic bias.

I have no idea how you took away that I was accusing police officers of misconstruing anything. Farthest from the truth and honestly I take offense to your suggesting that I felt that way. All I said was that looking at a police report after the fact is subjective, and without objective measurements and criteria (in place in advance) the data would vary from person to person and from station to station. What one cop might include in a report is different than what another might include. Different local requirements, different training - there are a zillion things that would make what you write up and what I write up different. We don't know how they defined use of force for instance - that too would be subjective unless there was uniformity as to defining what that means. At NO time did I incenuate that are officers are misreporting or misconstruing anything, and I didn't need a call out from you.

 

I read the bolded statement to be that officers have the opportunity to bias the reports rather than the inherent flaw in human memory and perception in recounting an event. I get what you meant, my bad.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Here is maybe one of the best sources of evaluating the national trends of police use of force as it is reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Police Use of Nonfatal Force, 2002-2011 (which is the most recent report available). For those interested, this report concludes that (1) police-resident contact involving white residents occur significantly more often than with any other individual race (Table 1), (2) black residents experience threats or the use of force significantly more often than white residents (Table 1), and (3) every type of police-initiated contact (i.e., traffic or street stops) resulted in threats or the use of force significantly more often when it involved contact with black residents than white residents (Table 3). This shows a snapshot of how the experience of African Americans with police officers are, on average, different than the experiences of white residents.

 

I would like to highlight some points here. This report notes that threats or the use of force by police during police-resident contact occur at a rate of 1.4% (445,500 of 32,879,500) for white residents and 3.5% (159,100 of 4,597,500) for black residents. Thus, there is a low rate of encounters in which police use any form of threats or force, on average around 2-4%. Further, we are talking about a difference of 1.4% and 3.5% which mean that for ever 100 encounters between police and the public, there are about 2 more occasions where black residents experience threats or use of force by the police than white residents. Now, I would like to share a few options about these results: (1) this does not seem like much of a difference (2 more incidences involving police use of force per 100 encounters), but when you multiple it by the millions of encounters reported, the magnitude of the discrepancy because more clear, (2) the low rate of police use of force would suggest that, on average, most police restrict their use of force and only deploy such tactics as necessary, and (3) the racial bias emerges during these 2-4% of encounters suggesting that it could be the by-product of a subset of police officers (whether these offending officers are distributed equally across the nation or if the discrepancy is targeted to particular precincts or regions the data are not clear from this report).

[NM11046]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did anyone read the study? It states that while there is not racial bias in police shootings, African Americans are more likely to be physically abused by police in literally every other possible way. Even if this is the sole source for racial bias in law enforcement, which it is clearly not nor is it representative of all law enforcement departments across the country, it would say unequivocally that African Americans are the recipients of a more physical form of policing.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO.

It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas.

Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.

NM, I think we should refrain from accusing police officers of mischaracterizing the accounts of the events of a situation in their police reports. In fact, if you look at it from the view that these reports describe a thread of biased use of force toward African Americans by police officers in these 10 precincts, I would argue there is no need to assume inaccurate reporting.

 

Also, thank you for bringing some balance to this discussion, BRI. Would should be reserved in our indictment of all members of our law enforcement community based on this singular study. We should also thank you and all other members of this community for your sacrifices and service. I think the root of this discussion, or more so the national discussion, is to identify a situation in which a group within our society feel disenfranchised and experience intolerance by individuals in positions of power based on their race. I think there are specific individuals that propagate this bias, and are the root of the issue, rather than a systemic bias.

I have no idea how you took away that I was accusing police officers of misconstruing anything. Farthest from the truth and honestly I take offense to your suggesting that I felt that way. All I said was that looking at a police report after the fact is subjective, and without objective measurements and criteria (in place in advance) the data would vary from person to person and from station to station. What one cop might include in a report is different than what another might include. Different local requirements, different training - there are a zillion things that would make what you write up and what I write up different. We don't know how they defined use of force for instance - that too would be subjective unless there was uniformity as to defining what that means. At NO time did I incenuate that are officers are misreporting or misconstruing anything, and I didn't need a call out from you.

 

I read the bolded statement to be that officers have the opportunity to bias the reports rather than the inherent flaw in human memory and perception in recounting an event. I get what you meant, my bad.

 

Thanks and sorry for the dramatic response - just don't want there to be any doubt that my feeling is we don't have the right kind of data to make any kind of statement (or rather that study doesn't provide it).

 

As far as inherent bias, I understand why you might have read it that way. It's a tough concept to admit to, but we all have it. That's why there's placebo controlled drug trials, they don't want doctors seeing something (efficacy or side effect) that isn't truly there and the tendency is to judge based on past experiences and knowledge about the patient, the disease etc.

[TAKODA]

Here is maybe one of the best sources of evaluating the national trends of police use of force as it is reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Police Use of Nonfatal Force, 2002-2011 (which is the most recent report available). For those interested, this report concludes that (1) police-resident contact involving white residents occur significantly more often than with any other individual race (Table 1), (2) black residents experience threats or the use of force significantly more often than white residents (Table 1), and (3) every type of police-initiated contact (i.e., traffic or street stops) resulted in threats or the use of force significantly more often when it involved contact with black residents than white residents (Table 3). This shows a snapshot of how the experience of African Americans with police officers are, on average, different than the experiences of white residents.

 

I would like to highlight some points here. This report notes that threats or the use of force by police during police-resident contact occur at a rate of 1.4% (445,500 of 32,879,500) for white residents and 3.5% (159,100 of 4,597,500) for black residents. Thus, there is a low rate of encounters in which police use any form of threats or force, on average around 2-4%. Further, we are talking about a difference of 1.4% and 3.5% which mean that for ever 100 encounters between police and the public, there are about 2 more occasions where black residents experience threats or use of force by the police than white residents. Now, I would like to share a few options about these results: (1) this does not seem like much of a difference (2 more incidences involving police use of force per 100 encounters), but when you multiple it by the millions of encounters reported, the magnitude of the discrepancy because more clear, (2) the low rate of police use of force would suggest that, on average, most police restrict their use of force and only deploy such tactics as necessary, and (3) the racial bias emerges during these 2-4% of encounters suggesting that it could be the by-product of a subset of police officers (whether these offending officers are distributed equally across the nation or if the discrepancy is targeted to particular precincts or regions the data are not clear from this report).

Tom,

 

Let me share one hypothesis here. First, I am not saying there is (No Bias) just that there might be some additional reasons For the numbers you have relayed.

 

These are not the exact words used but; From the Presidents Town Hall meeting, one of the officers made reference that the inordinate number of calls made in areas that are predominantly "African American" and carry a larger % of criminal activities, is one that adds to the perception of bias. They are there to police and keep people safe but the fact remains, that they may feel more threatened knowing these facts. Not sure if the study looks at (geographic) mapping or considers that it can truely skew the numbers, if not.