4 ms·

I mention statistics but I didn't say I required seeing statistics to be convinced. I'm not sure what kind of argument or evidence would convince me, but I prom

I mention statistics but I didn't say I required seeing statistics to be convinced. I'm not sure what kind of argument or evidence would convince me, but I promise you, if you give me reasons, I'll evaluate them with as open a mind as I am able. What convinced you?

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
the various statistics that have already been brought out in the various sub-posts to your original post. there seem to be a large number of complaints against police officers in the U.S. very few of these actually go to an indictment. of these ones that go to an indictment it seems fewer get heavy sentences in comparison to the rest of the population for similar infractions. all of this seems to make the police a statistical anomaly in comparison to other people accused of criminal conduct. Occam's razor would suggest that the reason that police do better than other people in not being indicted, not being convicted, and receiving lesser sentences is because they are police.
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  > the various statistics that have already been brought out in the various sub-posts to your original post. Have there? I haven't seen them. Best I've seen is a study suggesting that killings by police may be undercounted due to mistakes in reporting, but doesn't make any claims that these represent crimes committed by police. > there seem to be a large number of complaints against police officers in the U.S. Google tells me there are 900,000 cops in the US. That's a large number too. What's the complaint/cop ratio? > very few of these actually go to an indictment How many fewer than we'd expect? What's the normal indictment rate? What should it be? > of these ones that go to an indictment it seems fewer get heavy sentences in comparison to the rest of the population for similar infractions. Again, how many fewer? These are all things I would expect could be demonstrated empirically. What are the actual numbers? It seems like people are mostly going by their gut feeling, which I just don't find convincing.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    I do have some difficulty actually believing that you would be convinced, and it seems a bit weird everyone has to go do the googling for you but here are stats on police violence in U.S https://www.security.org/resources/police-brutality-statistics/ https://www.security.org/resources/police-brutality-statisti... note however this is violence, not corruption which would be a separate thing https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249850.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249850.pdf as it happens statistics on corruption in police in U.S are very few, even fewer than those about violence which only recently have started becoming available. >How many fewer than we'd expect? What's the normal indictment rate? What should it be? obviously the normal indictment rate would be how many 'civilians' who get the cops called on them then go on to have an actual court case. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/persons-arrested https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... would be where I would start on that. But of course that is very low-level, as you can see from the earlier link in this post https://www.security.org/resources/police-brutality-statistics/ https://www.security.org/resources/police-brutality-statisti... they say there are few indictments, I would just accept that as the case as the experts having done the low level work instead of doing the low level work because everyone doing the low level work themselves is unfortunately very inefficient and if we had to do that we would not be able to do anything else, which sometimes it seems to me that people who do not accept the conclusions of the experts but demand that the low level work be done on an individual basis in order to argue fairly are actually hoping that nothing will be done at all.
    - seti0Cha 4y ago
      > I do have some difficulty actually believing that you would be convinced, and it seems a bit weird everyone has to go do the googling for you but here are stats on police violence in U.S That's understandable. Looking back on our interaction, it does seem unfair that I should say I don't necessarily need stats, but then immediately ask for stats. It reads like a bait and switch. My apologies, I think I just got caught up in all the back and forth. I really do want to be openminded about this, but I didn't do a great job of showing it. I also understand where you are coming from about it seeming like I'm asking people to google things for me. However, from my perspective, I see people making a lot of assertions as if they were common knowledge and yet when I look I don't see what they are claiming. As an example, the sources you provide don't directly bear on any of the questions I asked. We can see for instance that blacks are arrested a lot more frequently than whites. But we also know that blacks are disproportionally poor, and poor people are more likely to be arrested and convicted than middle income or wealthy people. The reasons for that can be debated, but without controlling for income and other confounding factors, you don't really know to what degree blacks are disproportionately represented. That's just basic statistics. Maybe there are studies that do this, but I haven't seen any, nor apparently have the other commenters here. But that's not even directly relevant to whether police generally are held accountable for breaking the law generally. As you yourself said, there aren't many statistics on this. And yet people are claiming it a well established fact. I think that's wrong. I'm sure it happens to some degree (everything happens to some degree for large populations), but we need to understand the scope of problems so we can address them properly. As I said elsewhere, do we need to tweak the system or replace it? We can't know until we know what we're dealing with. Just assuming it's really really bad may feel helpful, but I don't think it is. > I would just accept that as the case as the experts having done the low level work instead of doing the low level work because everyone doing the low level work themselves is unfortunately very inefficient This is a good point. However, it's not clear to me that the experts are saying what is claimed. Take this from the conclusion from your first link: > While there’s room for debate over policy interventions that might limit the number of police killings, there’s inadequate accountability or scrutiny for these incidents. When police kill a civilian, the initial assumption by some is that the incident was justified, while others automatically assume it wasn’t. While the truth may be somewhere in between, the public can’t possibly make informed decisions without cold, hard facts. Totally agree! This is exactly what I'm saying. But this report isn't claiming to provide those cold hard facts, they are saying they are needed. Great! But why is everyone acting like they already have them? People keep pointing at the disproportional numbers of minorities killed, but don't discuss confounding factors. For example, it should not at all surprise us that native americans would be highly represented in this area because they are among the poorest people in the country, many living in areas with no jobs and high drug and alcohol abuse rates where domestic violence and other violent crime is well above the national average. It would be strange if this didn't result in higher rates of conflict with the police, and hence higher rates of death. Is there more than that going on? Maybe. It needs to be studied. For instance, how does it compare to similarly impoverished white communities? That's the sort of thing I'm looking for. In short, I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but it seems to me that people are not asking basic questions, so I can't really trust their conclusions. I do appreciate your taking the time though and I hope you don't feel like you've been trolled. I do appreciate your patience.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

the various statistics that have already been brought out in the various sub-posts to your original post. there seem to be a large number of complaints against police officers in the U.S. very few of these actually go to an indictment. of these ones that go to an indictment it seems fewer get heavy sentences in comparison to the rest of the population for similar infractions. all of this seems to make the police a statistical anomaly in comparison to other people accused of criminal conduct. Occam's razor would suggest that the reason that police do better than other people in not being indicted, not being convicted, and receiving lesser sentences is because they are police.

seti0Cha 4y ago
> the various statistics that have already been brought out in the various sub-posts to your original post. Have there? I haven't seen them. Best I've seen is a study suggesting that killings by police may be undercounted due to mistakes in reporting, but doesn't make any claims that these represent crimes committed by police. > there seem to be a large number of complaints against police officers in the U.S. Google tells me there are 900,000 cops in the US. That's a large number too. What's the complaint/cop ratio? > very few of these actually go to an indictment How many fewer than we'd expect? What's the normal indictment rate? What should it be? > of these ones that go to an indictment it seems fewer get heavy sentences in comparison to the rest of the population for similar infractions. Again, how many fewer? These are all things I would expect could be demonstrated empirically. What are the actual numbers? It seems like people are mostly going by their gut feeling, which I just don't find convincing.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  I do have some difficulty actually believing that you would be convinced, and it seems a bit weird everyone has to go do the googling for you but here are stats on police violence in U.S https://www.security.org/resources/police-brutality-statistics/ https://www.security.org/resources/police-brutality-statisti... note however this is violence, not corruption which would be a separate thing https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249850.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249850.pdf as it happens statistics on corruption in police in U.S are very few, even fewer than those about violence which only recently have started becoming available. >How many fewer than we'd expect? What's the normal indictment rate? What should it be? obviously the normal indictment rate would be how many 'civilians' who get the cops called on them then go on to have an actual court case. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/persons-arrested https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... would be where I would start on that. But of course that is very low-level, as you can see from the earlier link in this post https://www.security.org/resources/police-brutality-statistics/ https://www.security.org/resources/police-brutality-statisti... they say there are few indictments, I would just accept that as the case as the experts having done the low level work instead of doing the low level work because everyone doing the low level work themselves is unfortunately very inefficient and if we had to do that we would not be able to do anything else, which sometimes it seems to me that people who do not accept the conclusions of the experts but demand that the low level work be done on an individual basis in order to argue fairly are actually hoping that nothing will be done at all.
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    > I do have some difficulty actually believing that you would be convinced, and it seems a bit weird everyone has to go do the googling for you but here are stats on police violence in U.S That's understandable. Looking back on our interaction, it does seem unfair that I should say I don't necessarily need stats, but then immediately ask for stats. It reads like a bait and switch. My apologies, I think I just got caught up in all the back and forth. I really do want to be openminded about this, but I didn't do a great job of showing it. I also understand where you are coming from about it seeming like I'm asking people to google things for me. However, from my perspective, I see people making a lot of assertions as if they were common knowledge and yet when I look I don't see what they are claiming. As an example, the sources you provide don't directly bear on any of the questions I asked. We can see for instance that blacks are arrested a lot more frequently than whites. But we also know that blacks are disproportionally poor, and poor people are more likely to be arrested and convicted than middle income or wealthy people. The reasons for that can be debated, but without controlling for income and other confounding factors, you don't really know to what degree blacks are disproportionately represented. That's just basic statistics. Maybe there are studies that do this, but I haven't seen any, nor apparently have the other commenters here. But that's not even directly relevant to whether police generally are held accountable for breaking the law generally. As you yourself said, there aren't many statistics on this. And yet people are claiming it a well established fact. I think that's wrong. I'm sure it happens to some degree (everything happens to some degree for large populations), but we need to understand the scope of problems so we can address them properly. As I said elsewhere, do we need to tweak the system or replace it? We can't know until we know what we're dealing with. Just assuming it's really really bad may feel helpful, but I don't think it is. > I would just accept that as the case as the experts having done the low level work instead of doing the low level work because everyone doing the low level work themselves is unfortunately very inefficient This is a good point. However, it's not clear to me that the experts are saying what is claimed. Take this from the conclusion from your first link: > While there’s room for debate over policy interventions that might limit the number of police killings, there’s inadequate accountability or scrutiny for these incidents. When police kill a civilian, the initial assumption by some is that the incident was justified, while others automatically assume it wasn’t. While the truth may be somewhere in between, the public can’t possibly make informed decisions without cold, hard facts. Totally agree! This is exactly what I'm saying. But this report isn't claiming to provide those cold hard facts, they are saying they are needed. Great! But why is everyone acting like they already have them? People keep pointing at the disproportional numbers of minorities killed, but don't discuss confounding factors. For example, it should not at all surprise us that native americans would be highly represented in this area because they are among the poorest people in the country, many living in areas with no jobs and high drug and alcohol abuse rates where domestic violence and other violent crime is well above the national average. It would be strange if this didn't result in higher rates of conflict with the police, and hence higher rates of death. Is there more than that going on? Maybe. It needs to be studied. For instance, how does it compare to similarly impoverished white communities? That's the sort of thing I'm looking for. In short, I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but it seems to me that people are not asking basic questions, so I can't really trust their conclusions. I do appreciate your taking the time though and I hope you don't feel like you've been trolled. I do appreciate your patience.