Police Reform

[funhusker]

15 hours ago, Enhance said:

Based on what little I know about shooting people in hostile situations, I'm interested in the efficacy of training to 'shoot, not kill.' It seems counter-intuitive since a firearm's primary function is to kill and shooting center mass is objectively the most effective target zone. It can often take several centralized shots to get an assailant to stop what they're doing.

 

 

 

And it's amazing that the thighs/legs are listed as a green area in that photo when one hit to the femoral artery means likely death.

 

 

 

I don't know. De-escalation training and use of electroshock weapons seem far more wise, particularly since newer shock weapons have a sort of pre-fire technology that can try to intimidate the assailant into complying.

I see most of your point.

 

But I don't see what Wayne State College and Boystown Research Hospital have to do with anything....

 

#these ads are stupid

[teachercd]

Anyone know a smaller college in Nebraska, maybe near Wayne?

 

And I am also looking for a research hospital, around 132nd street. 

[DevoHusker]

 

 

[deedsker]

On 5/22/2021 at 9:15 AM, DevoHusker said:

 

 

 

[DevoHusker]

7 hours ago, deedsker said:

 

My linked tweet went back to 1960...

 

But yeah...statistics 

[deedsker]

Mobile messed up.

[deedsker]

2 minutes ago, deedsker said:

His tweet says largest percentage increase since 1960, but I didn’t see his chart in the set of tweets. Also the percent noted has a lot to do with the general decreasing nature leading up to it. 100% increase of 1 is still just one more. 

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by deedsker
I don’t know. It is janky.

[DevoHusker]

27 minutes ago, deedsker said:

 

So more isn't more...

 

Got it.

[deedsker]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

So more isn't more...

 

Got it.

If you invest $5 dollars and you make 40% a year on it how happy are you?

 

 

You invest a million dollars in something and it goes up by 7% a year how happy are you?

 

Going up means everything has changed right?

 

It is concerning that things have gone up this year, but is it an inflection point for growth, a resistance to the trough, or a blip on the downward slope? I don’t think that was a part of Ezra’s analysis.

[deedsker]

I think the statistical tweets laid out a nuance that pretty well covered the original tweets. Posting only the numerical growth gives no context for the change. Only that it is a deviation from the previous sample. Giving a in depth analysis to the changes over time means that this year is a departure from previous year that requires further explanation. Did he try to explain the historical context or did he try to grab attention?

 

Use your own discretion and tell me he did a good job of explaining the factors going into the quote posted and the nuance that may need to be applied to the, “worst ever since 1960.”

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Moiraine]

11 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

My linked tweet went back to 1960...

 

But yeah...statistics 

 

 

If I created a graph like that for my job my bosses would think I'm an idiot. It should have lines showing multiple years, not just 2019 and 2020. My guess on why it doesn't show multiple years, which is very simple to do, is that would ruin the story they're attempting to create.

[DevoHusker]

8 hours ago, deedsker said:

I think the statistical tweets laid out a nuance that pretty well covered the original tweets. Posting only the numerical growth gives no context for the change. Only that it is a deviation from the previous sample. Giving a in depth analysis to the changes over time means that this year is a departure from previous year that requires further explanation. Did he try to explain the historical context or did he try to grab attention?

 

Use your own discretion and tell me he did a good job of explaining the factors going into the quote posted and the nuance that may need to be applied to the, “worst ever since 1960.”

 

You say a small uptick is not newsworthy, because of the overall downward trend. That may be true, from your perspective. 

 

But, did the numbers drop, overall, before or after those places defunded police departments? Or did the numbers rise, even as a deviation from the downward trend, before or after efforts were made to reduce law enforcement's budgets/numbers/influence?

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

If I created a graph like that for my job my bosses would think I'm an idiot. 

 

You have tough bosses.

[deedsker]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

You say a small uptick is not newsworthy, because of the overall downward trend. That may be true, from your perspective. 

 

But, did the numbers drop, overall, before or after those places defunded police departments? Or did the numbers rise, even as a deviation from the downward trend, before or after efforts were made to reduce law enforcement's budgets/numbers/influence?

I am not saying anything about the conjecture he put forth and the conclusions he made other than they were a bit low vision. I don't have better answers to any of his questions nor did I intend to answer them, but his conclusions based on "the largest percentage increase since 1960" is statistically correct, but not at all nuanced. He got everyone's attention with it and made some bold conclusions based on the increase, but with context, my answer would be "". Maybe we wait a couple years before saying what happened last year was a foregone change to the environment or just a blip on the continued way down. 

 

I don't think this last year of data is an as automatic retribution of the thoughts being laid out by some of the groups like he thinks it was.

[DevoHusker]

48 minutes ago, deedsker said:

I am not saying anything about the conjecture he put forth and the conclusions he made other than they were a bit low vision. I don't have better answers to any of his questions nor did I intend to answer them, but his conclusions based on "the largest percentage increase since 1960" is statistically correct, but not at all nuanced. He got everyone's attention with it and made some bold conclusions based on the increase, but with context, my answer would be "". Maybe we wait a couple years before saying what happened last year was a foregone change to the environment or just a blip on the continued way down. 

 

I don't think this last year of data is an as automatic retribution of the thoughts being laid out by some of the groups like he thinks it was.

 

Thanks. I can see some of your point. 

Waiting a longer period before making blanket statements is probably good advice...but almost never followed.