5 ms·

Because we have looked at the statistics.

asguy 6y ago
Which statistics?
jimmygrapes 6y ago
Which statistics are these, please provide! They must be both very detailed and very massaged to get a result as generic as "cops are racist" (a mindset that requires significantly more information than provided by mere statistics to identify).
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Here's one pretty interesting result: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507094621.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507094621.h... > The largest-ever study of alleged racial profiling during traffic stops has found that blacks, who are pulled over more frequently than whites by day, are much less likely to be stopped after sunset, when "a veil of darkness" masks their race. > The Stanford team decided to repeat the analysis using the much larger dataset that they had gathered. First, they narrowed the range of variables they had to analyze by choosing a specific time of day -- around 7 p.m. -- when the probable causes for a stop were more or less constant. Next, they took advantage of the fact that, in the months before and after daylight saving time each year, the sky gets a little darker or lighter, day by day. Because they had such a massive database, the researchers were able to find 113,000 traffic stops, from all of the locations in their database, that occurred on those days, before or after clocks sprang forward or fell back, when the sky was growing darker or lighter at around 7 p.m. local time.
- mitjak 6y ago
  whenever this comes up, this is inevitably the response, which sometimes betrays confirmation bias. these statistics are not hard to find.
Reedx 6y ago
This is worth a read for a nuanced, holistic look at the stats. https://samharris.org/can-pull-back-brink/ https://samharris.org/can-pull-back-brink/
- tjr225 6y ago
  Lol, from that very article: > Specifically, in New York City, in encounters where white and black citizens were matched for other characteristics, they found that: > Cops were… > 17 percent more likely to go hands on black suspects > 18 percent more likely to push them into a wall > 16 percent more likely to put them in handcuffs (in a situation in which they aren’t arrested) > 18 percent more likely to push them to the ground > 25 percent more likely to use pepper spray or a baton > 19 percent more likely to draw their guns > 24 percent more likely to point a gun at them.
  - stronglikedan 6y ago
    Some people seem to physically resist arrest more than others. That's really not a smart thing to do, and leads to related stats like that.
    - maybeOneDay 6y ago
      If you're so keen on implying it, wouldn't it be more honest to phrase your sentence accurately? > Black people seem to physically resist arrest more than others. That's really not a smart thing to do, and leads to related stats like that.
- tjr225 6y ago
  For what it’s worth to anyone who finds themselves reading this for whatever reason; the author of the above comment changed their original post from a snarky “have you?” To its current form after my reply. In my opinion that is not the behavior of someone who is trying to have a good faith discussion.
caeril 6y ago
PNAS has also looked at the statistics: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877 https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877 Police brutality is definitely a problem in the United States, but it appears to be entirely colorblind.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  "This article has a Correction, but has also been retracted and Letters." From that retraction: > Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research. edit: It's also, IMO, misleading to claim "PNAS has also looked at the statistics" based on their publication of a submitted article. It passed peer-review and they saw fit to publish it; it doesn't mean the National Academy of Sciences feels it's the last or only word on the subject.
  - fallingknife 6y ago
    The error is pretty trivial: >“Although we were clear about the quantity we estimated and provide justification for calculating Pr(race|shot, X) in our report (see also 2, 3), we want to correct a sentence in our significance statement that has been quoted by others stating ‘White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.’ This sentence refers to estimating Pr(shot|race, X). As we estimated Pr(race|shot, X), this sentence should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      The retraction comes after the correction, and again, states explicitly: > our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Evidently you either have not, or you have made some fairly basic errors in interpreting the data.

Which statistics?

Which statistics are these, please provide! They must be both very detailed and very massaged to get a result as generic as "cops are racist" (a mindset that requires significantly more information than provided by mere statistics to identify).

ceejayoz 6y ago
Here's one pretty interesting result: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507094621.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507094621.h... > The largest-ever study of alleged racial profiling during traffic stops has found that blacks, who are pulled over more frequently than whites by day, are much less likely to be stopped after sunset, when "a veil of darkness" masks their race. > The Stanford team decided to repeat the analysis using the much larger dataset that they had gathered. First, they narrowed the range of variables they had to analyze by choosing a specific time of day -- around 7 p.m. -- when the probable causes for a stop were more or less constant. Next, they took advantage of the fact that, in the months before and after daylight saving time each year, the sky gets a little darker or lighter, day by day. Because they had such a massive database, the researchers were able to find 113,000 traffic stops, from all of the locations in their database, that occurred on those days, before or after clocks sprang forward or fell back, when the sky was growing darker or lighter at around 7 p.m. local time.
mitjak 6y ago
whenever this comes up, this is inevitably the response, which sometimes betrays confirmation bias. these statistics are not hard to find.

Reedx 6y ago

This is worth a read for a nuanced, holistic look at the stats. https://samharris.org/can-pull-back-brink/ https://samharris.org/can-pull-back-brink/

tjr225 6y ago
Lol, from that very article: > Specifically, in New York City, in encounters where white and black citizens were matched for other characteristics, they found that: > Cops were… > 17 percent more likely to go hands on black suspects > 18 percent more likely to push them into a wall > 16 percent more likely to put them in handcuffs (in a situation in which they aren’t arrested) > 18 percent more likely to push them to the ground > 25 percent more likely to use pepper spray or a baton > 19 percent more likely to draw their guns > 24 percent more likely to point a gun at them.
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  Some people seem to physically resist arrest more than others. That's really not a smart thing to do, and leads to related stats like that.
  - maybeOneDay 6y ago
    If you're so keen on implying it, wouldn't it be more honest to phrase your sentence accurately? > Black people seem to physically resist arrest more than others. That's really not a smart thing to do, and leads to related stats like that.
tjr225 6y ago
For what it’s worth to anyone who finds themselves reading this for whatever reason; the author of the above comment changed their original post from a snarky “have you?” To its current form after my reply. In my opinion that is not the behavior of someone who is trying to have a good faith discussion.

caeril 6y ago

PNAS has also looked at the statistics: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877 https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877 Police brutality is definitely a problem in the United States, but it appears to be entirely colorblind.

ceejayoz 6y ago
"This article has a Correction, but has also been retracted and Letters." From that retraction: > Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research. edit: It's also, IMO, misleading to claim "PNAS has also looked at the statistics" based on their publication of a submitted article. It passed peer-review and they saw fit to publish it; it doesn't mean the National Academy of Sciences feels it's the last or only word on the subject.
- fallingknife 6y ago
  The error is pretty trivial: >“Although we were clear about the quantity we estimated and provide justification for calculating Pr(race|shot, X) in our report (see also 2, 3), we want to correct a sentence in our significance statement that has been quoted by others stating ‘White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.’ This sentence refers to estimating Pr(shot|race, X). As we estimated Pr(race|shot, X), this sentence should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    The retraction comes after the correction, and again, states explicitly: > our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

Evidently you either have not, or you have made some fairly basic errors in interpreting the data.