Police Reform

[DevoHusker]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Are we reading the same text? The authors retracted the paper and admit there were flaws in their analysis. That has nothing to do with how anyone else construes their work.

"but stood by their central argument"

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

"but stood by their central argument"

I'm sure they do, but that's just standing by an opinion. Shows that the authors are more interested in that outcome than in the methodology and arriving at the conclusion based on the analysis.

[DevoHusker]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

I'm sure they do, but that's just standing by an opinion. Shows that the authors are more interested in that outcome than in the methodology and arriving at the conclusion based on the analysis.

No matter what anyone has put in this thread, stats/articles/opinions that show otherwise, you remain steadfast in your misguided view. I applaud you for your tenacity. 

[RedDenver]

26 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

No matter what anyone has put in this thread, stats/articles/opinions that show otherwise, you remain steadfast in your misguided view. I applaud you for your tenacity. 

Yeah, it's me that's steadfast in my misguided view. Not you who can't let go of a retracted paper whose own authors admit had a flawed analysis.

[DevoHusker]

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Are we reading the same text? The authors retracted the paper and admit there were flaws in their analysis. That has nothing to do with how anyone else construes their work.

Evidently we are not reading the same text:

 

Authors of study on race and police killings ask for its retraction, citing “continued misuse” in the media

A Wall Street Journal editorial claimed last month that a “Twitter mob” forced the demotion of a Michigan State faculty member, Stephen Hsu, from his post as senior vice president for research and innovation at the school, in part because of his perceived role in having “directed funding to research downplaying racism in bias in police shootings” by funding Cesario’s study.

 

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Yeah, it's me that's steadfast in my misguided view. Not you who can't let go of a retracted paper whose own authors admit had a flawed analysis.

 

Did you ever address the FBI statistics that I linked and posted a while back...?

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

Evidently we are not reading the same text:

 

Authors of study on race and police killings ask for its retraction, citing “continued misuse” in the media

A Wall Street Journal editorial claimed last month that a “Twitter mob” forced the demotion of a Michigan State faculty member, Stephen Hsu, from his post as senior vice president for research and innovation at the school, in part because of his perceived role in having “directed funding to research downplaying racism in bias in police shootings” by funding Cesario’s study.

Allow me to retort using your own post (and apparently font size matters):

6 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

It appears that they issued a retraction, but not because their data was wrong. Just that it is constantly being "misconstrued" for political purposes.

 

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/06/authors-of-study-on-race-and-police-killings-ask-for-its-retraction-citing-continued-misuse-in-the-media/

 

As Cesario and Johnson note, the article earned heavy criticism for its methodology. The article led to an exchange of letters in PNAS in January, and then in April, the journal issued a correction to the paper in which the authors acknowledged flaws in their analysis but stood by their central argument. 

Whether they retracted their paper because of how people were using it or because they're afraid of the boogeyman doesn't change that their analysis was flawed, which invalidates conclusions they drew from that flawed analysis. That's how logic and reasoning work.

 

I'm not sure what FBI statistics you're referring to.

[DevoHusker]

Sorry about the font size, I just copied and pasted. We are not going to see this issue with much commonality. I will try to find the FBI and DOJ links I provided in the past. They may not have been responding to you.

 

What do you think of this: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/07/09/berkeley-cops-may-be-stripped-of-traffic-stopping-duties/

 

Two things will happen. The "routine" stops will continue to be just that. The "other" stops will not occur, since the offender knows there are no repercussions for fleeing. Or, (I guess 3) if the offender was just involved in a bank robbery, or shooting, or has felony warrants for their arrest, they will just shoot the unarmed roads department employee and drive away. 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

Sorry about the font size, I just copied and pasted. We are not going to see this issue with much commonality. I will try to find the FBI and DOJ links I provided in the past. They may not have been responding to you.

 

What do you think of this: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/07/09/berkeley-cops-may-be-stripped-of-traffic-stopping-duties/

 

Two things will happen. The "routine" stops will continue to be just that. The "other" stops will not occur, since the offender knows there are no repercussions for fleeing. Or, (I guess 3) if the offender was just involved in a bank robbery, or shooting, or has felony warrants for their arrest, they will just shoot the unarmed roads department employee and drive away. 

I don't have access and can't read that story.

[DevoHusker]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/09/politics/pew-poll-police-funding-policies/index.html

 

Poll finds more people want to keep police spending the same, or even increase budgets, than people who want to defund. 

[DevoHusker]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I don't have access and can't read that story.

 

Weird. It opens right up for me. The thought is to have unarmed transportation employees enforcing traffic law.

 

That’s because Berkeley could become the first city in the nation where unarmed transportation employees, not police officers, will be making routine traffic stops.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Weird. It opens right up for me. The thought is to have unarmed transportation employees enforcing traffic law.

 

That’s because Berkeley could become the first city in the nation where unarmed transportation employees, not police officers, will be making routine traffic stops.

I think it'll work. If an issue arises (like running away), the police can be called in. And while it's possible that the driver could shoot the unarmed transportation employee, that's a giant escalation from a traffic ticket to murder, which I don't think is going to happen too often.

[DevoHusker]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I don't have access and can't read that story.

 

Try this

 

https://abc7news.com/berkeley-news-police-city-of/6310534/

[DevoHusker]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

I think it'll work. If an issue arises (like running away), the police can be called in. And while it's possible that the driver could shoot the unarmed transportation employee, that's a giant escalation from a traffic ticket to murder, which I don't think is going to happen too often.

 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Try this

 

https://abc7news.com/berkeley-news-police-city-of/6310534/

Ok, I read that and same comments I made above: it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

Good talk.

[DevoHusker]

Just now, RedDenver said:

Ok, I read that and same comments I made above: it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Good talk.

 

What type of bubble do you live in? You think that just because it is not a gun totin cop that stops these violent felony offenders that they wont assault/kill/flee?