Baltimore riots

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So true. Even when confronted with facts contradicting a position, it's very hard to get someone to change that position. Jonathan Swift put it best back in the 18th century: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

i LOVE that quote, and reference it fairly often.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Good news..

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...ou_d_know.html

But....perception is still reality for some:

But just because the unwed birth rate is going down doesn't mean that the panic over single motherhood is likely to recede. The majority of Americans believe crime is getting worse, but crime is actually way down since the ’90s. Most Americans also believe teen pregnancy is on the rise, when in fact it's in a sharp decline. So we'll probably continue to hear about how single mothers are responsible for every social ill imaginable.

The overall, unwed birth rate (number of births) is down because the overall birth rate is down. This decrease is still reason to celebrate as statistically children born to unwed mothers bear virtually every disadvantage imaginable to their counterparts born into a marriage.

The percentage of births to unwed mothers remains steady at roughly 4 in 10. If only we could get that down to 1980 rates (20%) only 2 in 10 or less would be born into a disadvantageous life/future.

The percentage of births to unmarried women declined slightly in 2013 to 40.6%, after holding steady from 2011 to 2012 at 40.7%; the percentage peaked in 2009 at 41.0%.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm

So while overall births have declined the percentage of those births born to unwed mothers have decreased 9/10 of 1% or to be specific 0.0097561.

To give some perspective, that percentage transposed into a salary raise for someone making $15 bucks an hour would come to 14 and a half cents an hour or $5.85 a week. If that's good news, so be it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I guess a new campaign should be started called White Lives Matter. The reason I say this is because the truth of the matter is that police kill more white people than black people. You are probably thinking that that is misleading because there are more white people than black people. But the truth of the matter is that even when you adjust for that, police still kill more white people than black people.

"Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ty-d/?page=all

The bottom line (as the title of the article says) is that "Police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage."

[OldDog]

Well now, that's just plain racist talk.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I guess a new campaign should be started called White Lives Matter. The reason I say this is because the truth of the matter is that police kill more white people than black people. You are probably thinking that that is misleading because there are more white people than black people. But the truth of the matter is that even when you adjust for that, police still kill more white people than black people.

"Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ty-d/?page=all

The bottom line (as the title of the article says) is that "Police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage."

All lives matter....ok, I will make exceptions for terrorists, a bullet in their brains I can accept. The issue should be whether the police are justified in the use of deadly force...in cases of self defense or defense of innocent others, I support the police. A meaningful comparison would be one that incorporates this detail, otherwise it's apples and oranges.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I guess a new campaign should be started called White Lives Matter. The reason I say this is because the truth of the matter is that police kill more white people than black people. You are probably thinking that that is misleading because there are more white people than black people. But the truth of the matter is that even when you adjust for that, police still kill more white people than black people.

"Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ty-d/?page=all

The bottom line (as the title of the article says) is that "Police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage."

I'm not quite sure why they'd want to subcategorize for that, I'm not sure what that has to do with the spate of police violence on people committing no crime either. And the article also states, as has been known for some time, that no one actually knows how many shootings and killings there are by police, because no one tracks it.
The police must follow the law while enforcing it. That is regardless of who they encounter or their race.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I'm not quite sure why they'd want to subcategorize for that, I'm not sure what that has to do with the spate of police violence on people committing no crime either. And the article also states, as has been known for some time, that no one actually knows how many shootings and killings there are by police, because no one tracks it.
The police must follow the law while enforcing it. That is regardless of who they encounter or their race.

They know exactly how many killing there are by police. Where does the article say that no one knows how many shooting and killings there are by police? The article says that the FBI data on police shooting by race is incomplete. But you don't need 100% complete data to do an accurate analysis. For example, when polls are done they don't poll 100% of the population. They may only poll 1-2% of the population and this will yield very good data as long as there was a true random sample.

With regard to your question about why they would be looking at the racial breakdown of violent crime, this would obviously be something that needs to be done to make a fair comparison. It is extremely rare that the police shoot an unarmed person who is not in a physical confrontation with them. It happens occasionally but it is very rare. Most of the cases in the news like the Michael Brown case involve some type of physical confrontation. The vast majority of police shooting involve violent criminals.

Hypothetically, let's say the police shoot 100 people. And let's say 50 of those are white, 40 are black and 10 are Asian. We would want to look at two different things. The first thing we would want to look at is what percentage of the population each group makes up. Let's say white people make up 60% of the population, blacks make up 15% of the population, and Asians make up 25% of the population. Then we would know that way more black are being shot percentage wise compared to other groups, even though more whites are being shot total. But we would need to look at one more thing. Since the vast majority of police shootings involve violent criminals, we would need to see the statistics on who is committing the violent crime. If blacks are committing 42% of the violent crime, then it would not be unusual if 40% of the people that police shoot are black.

Anyway, we are constantly being told by the civil rights leaders and the media that the police are killing more black people than white people. I think this study shows that this is complete BS. The study may not be perfect but it obviously has enough information to show that not only are more white being killed by police in terms of raw numbers, but more whites are being killed by police in terms of the percentages of violent criminals being killed by police.

I agree with you that the police need to follow the law. Nobody wants to see the police kill anyone (of any race), unless it is a last resort of self-defense. We have seen the police use excessive force and shoot people that should not have been shot. Nobody is denying that there have been cases of excessive force and cases of unjustified killings by police. We all know that. The question is whether the police are more likely to use deadly force against people of color. The civil rights leaders and the liberal news media would lead you to believe the answer is yes. But the evidence does not support this position.

[Danzig]

As researchers are quick to point out, FBI data on police shootings by race is notoriously incomplete,


That is from the article.

What does that mean? No agency, no database that can tell you the numbers.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

As researchers are quick to point out, FBI data on police shootings by race is notoriously incomplete,


That is from the article.

What does that mean? No agency, no database that can tell you the numbers.

I will repeat what I just said. "The article says that the FBI data on police shooting by race is incomplete. But you don't need 100% complete data to do an accurate analysis. For example, when polls are done, the pollsters don't poll 100% of the population. They may only poll 1-2% of the population and this will yield very good data, as long as there was a true random sample."

If you can get some pretty accurate information from a poll that only polls 1% of a population, then I think the numbers from the FBI (which are probably 80-90% complete) are probably pretty accurate. You don't need exact numbers to analyze data. If you have ballpark numbers, you are going to draw the same conclusions

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will repeat what I just said. "The article says that the FBI data on police shooting by race is incomplete. But you don't need 100% complete data to do an accurate analysis. For example, when polls are done, the pollsters don't poll 100% of the population. They may only poll 1-2% of the population and this will yield very good data, as long as there was a true random sample."

If you can get some pretty accurate information from a poll that only polls 1% of a population, then I think the numbers from the FBI (which are probably 80-90% complete) are probably pretty accurate. You don't need exact numbers to analyze data. If you have ballpark numbers, you are going to draw the same conclusions

you think? based on what exactly?






Those internal figures show at least 1,800 police killings in those 105 departments between 2007 and 2012, about 45% more than the FBI’s tally for justifiable homicides in those departments’ jurisdictions, which was 1,242, according to the Journal’s analysis.
The full national scope of the underreporting can’t be quantified. In the period analyzed by the Journal, 753 police entities reported about 2,400 killings by police. The large majority of the nation’s roughly 18,000 law-enforcement agencies didn’t report any.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hundreds...ics-1417577504

and then the article you posted has this in it:

His results, posted last week on his blog Cop in the Hood, arrived with several caveats, notably that 25 percent of the website’s data, which is drawn largely from news reports, failed to show the race of the person killed.

you're wanting this bs study with god knows what numbers from a site, where one quarter of the stats included don't even know the race of the person shot, to prove something??

if you wish to believe what the person in the article you cited tries to conclude, go for it.
but good luck getting anyone to read it and glean anything useful from it.

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/joseph-de...allenge-police

Ray Tensing, a white University of Cincinnati police officer, stopped DuBose on July 19, ostensibly for not having a front license plate on his car, and body cam video confirms that he shot and killed the 43-year-old after he reached to undo his seat belt.


He lost his temper because Mr. Dubose wouldn’t get out of his car quick enough,” Deters said. “When you see this, you won’t believe how quickly he pulls his gun. Maybe a second — it’s incredible.”

The video of the incident was critical in arriving at the decision to indict Tensing, Deters said, adding that he thinks Tensing tried to intentionally mislead investigators. “The body cam was very important in this investigation,” Deters said. “I think it’s a good idea for police to wear body cameras. This time it led to an indictment for murder.”


Tensing’s officers may have tried to aid his cover-up of the shooting, noting their corroboration of his story in their official reports of the incident.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

The video of the incident was critical in arriving at the decision to indict Tensing, Deters said, adding that he thinks Tensing tried to intentionally mislead investigators. “The body cam was very important in this investigation,” Deters said. “I think it’s a good idea for police to wear body cameras. This time it led to an indictment for murder.”


Tensing’s officers may have tried to aid his cover-up of the shooting, noting their corroboration of his story in their official reports of the incident.

I hope his colleagues who lied to cover it up get charged too.

The depressing this is that it's not like there's some sudden uptick in police violence; it's just that it's now getting media coverage.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/us/pol...dia-attitudes/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I hope his colleagues who lied to cover it up get charged too.

The depressing this is that it's not like there's some sudden uptick in police violence; it's just that it's now getting media coverage.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/us/pol...dia-attitudes/

and it's baffling to me that crime is lower than it's been in decades, but some of the police just seem so incredibly quick to escalate confrontations, and so fast to pull a gun and fire.
what's going on with their training? where is this irrational fear coming from?

and why did two cops think they could say what they wanted on their report, when they knew the camera caught the whole thing? were they just betting no one would view it? probably. the police have to get used to not getting benefit of the doubt like they used to.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and it's baffling to me that crime is lower than it's been in decades, but some of the police just seem so incredibly quick to escalate confrontations, and so fast to pull a gun and fire.
what's going on with their training? where is this irrational fear coming from?

and why did two cops think they could say what they wanted on their report, when they knew the camera caught the whole thing? were they just betting no one would view it? probably. the police have to get used to not getting benefit of the doubt like they used to.

It's lack of accountability. Very seldom do they face repercussions for bad behavior on the job, so why bother to do differently? After all, it's the taxpayers that have to pony up for the settlements, not the cops.

Start taking the fines out of the police's pension funds instead, and you'd see changes real quick, because there would be consequences.

[Danzig]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/opinio...ill/index.html

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you think? based on what exactly?






Those internal figures show at least 1,800 police killings in those 105 departments between 2007 and 2012, about 45% more than the FBI’s tally for justifiable homicides in those departments’ jurisdictions, which was 1,242, according to the Journal’s analysis.
The full national scope of the underreporting can’t be quantified. In the period analyzed by the Journal, 753 police entities reported about 2,400 killings by police. The large majority of the nation’s roughly 18,000 law-enforcement agencies didn’t report any.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hundreds...ics-1417577504

and then the article you posted has this in it:

His results, posted last week on his blog Cop in the Hood, arrived with several caveats, notably that 25 percent of the website’s data, which is drawn largely from news reports, failed to show the race of the person killed.

you're wanting this bs study with god knows what numbers from a site, where one quarter of the stats included don't even know the race of the person shot, to prove something??

if you wish to believe what the person in the article you cited tries to conclude, go for it.
but good luck getting anyone to read it and glean anything useful from it.

If they didn't know the race of the person shot in 25% of the cases, that means they did know the race of the person in 75% of the cases. As I said before, when you look at data on any subject, you never need to have 100% of the data to be able to draw accurate conclusions. If there are 2,400 police shootings, if they only have data on half of the shootings, the results are still going to be the same (give or take 1%). Even if they only had data on 240 of the shootings (10%), the numbers are going to be the same. You don't need anything close to all the data. I'm not sure what is so confusing to you about that.

If I do a poll of 1,000 random people on any subject, and 80% of the respondents answer a certain way, is the poll not reliable since there are 300 million people in the country and I only polled 1000 people? Good luck if you think polls and data aren't accurate unless they cover the whole population. If a new medication is tested on 1,000 people and it works on 90% of them, would you say we need to test it on 300 million people to know whether it works? Of course not. If you have a good size sample of something, that is all you need. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand. Although I don't think you would have a problem understanding it if you liked the conclusion. But since you don't like the conclusion, you say they need more data.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If they didn't know the race of the person shot in 25% of the cases, that means they did know the race of the person in 75% of the cases. As I said before, when you look at data on any subject, you never need to have 100% of the data to be able to draw accurate conclusions. If there are 2,400 police shootings, if they only have data on half of the shootings, the results are still going to be the same (give or take 1%). Even if they only had data on 240 of the shootings (10%), the numbers are going to be the same. You don't need anything close to all the data. I'm not sure what is so confusing to you about that.

If I do a poll of 1,000 random people on any subject, and 80% of the respondents answer a certain way, is the poll not reliable since there are 300 million people in the country and I only polled 1000 people? Good luck if you think polls and data aren't accurate unless they cover the whole population. If a new medication is tested on 1,000 people and it works on 90% of them, would you say we need to test it on 300 million people to know whether it works? Of course not. If you have a good size sample of something, that is all you need. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand. Although I don't think you would have a problem understanding it if you liked the conclusion. But since you don't like the conclusion, you say they need more data.

i have no problem with polls.
this isn't a poll. it's a bs article that supposedly uses facts to draw a conclusion.
polls have to do with opinions.
this article you used supposedly deals with facts. it does not however. and how can one conclude something regarding race, when 25% of the data is unknown??
and it's not whether someone likes or doesn't like his opinion. it's that no logical conclusion can be reached due to faulty and incomplete data.

also, take note of this from politifact:

We have not found any experts who will vouch for numbers that purport to represent annual fatal shootings by police, as there are gaping holes within each dataset.

visited factcheck.org, to see what i could find. based on cdc info from death certificates, they show:

The CDC database contains deaths as a result of “legal intervention,” which is defined as “injuries inflicted by the police or other law-enforcing agents, including military on duty, in the course of arresting or attempting to arrest lawbreakers, suppressing disturbances, maintaining order, and other legal actions.”
We searched the CDC database for fatal firearm shootings that occurred during legal interventions. The database provides the race of the deceased, but not the race of the law enforcement officer who fired the fatal shot or shots. Still, the CDC information is useful.
From 1999 through 2012, there were 4,819 such shooting deaths. Most of those killed — 69 percent — were white. However, the white population in the U.S. is far greater than the population of blacks, so the data also show blacks were fatally shot at more than twice the rate of whites.
During that 14-year period, there were 3,333 white people shot and killed during legal interventions, 1,270 blacks, 111 Asians and 105 native American Indians. Based on the population during that time, the CDC database shows 1 white person was shot and killed during legal intervention per million. The rate for blacks was 2.3 people for every 1 million.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i have no problem with polls.
this isn't a poll. it's a bs article that supposedly uses facts to draw a conclusion.
polls have to do with opinions.
this article you used supposedly deals with facts. it does not however. and how can one conclude something regarding race, when 25% of the data is unknown??
and it's not whether someone likes or doesn't like his opinion. it's that no logical conclusion can be reached due to faulty and incomplete data.

also, take note of this from politifact:

We have not found any experts who will vouch for numbers that purport to represent annual fatal shootings by police, as there are gaping holes within each dataset.

visited factcheck.org, to see what i could find. based on cdc info from death certificates, they show:

The CDC database contains deaths as a result of “legal intervention,” which is defined as “injuries inflicted by the police or other law-enforcing agents, including military on duty, in the course of arresting or attempting to arrest lawbreakers, suppressing disturbances, maintaining order, and other legal actions.”
We searched the CDC database for fatal firearm shootings that occurred during legal interventions. The database provides the race of the deceased, but not the race of the law enforcement officer who fired the fatal shot or shots. Still, the CDC information is useful.
From 1999 through 2012, there were 4,819 such shooting deaths. Most of those killed — 69 percent — were white. However, the white population in the U.S. is far greater than the population of blacks, so the data also show blacks were fatally shot at more than twice the rate of whites.
During that 14-year period, there were 3,333 white people shot and killed during legal interventions, 1,270 blacks, 111 Asians and 105 native American Indians. Based on the population during that time, the CDC database shows 1 white person was shot and killed during legal intervention per million. The rate for blacks was 2.3 people for every 1 million.

There is plenty of info right there in what you just provided. It says, "During that 14-year period, there were 3,333 white people shot and killed during legal interventions, 1,270 blacks, 111 Asians and 105 Native Americans." That is more than enough data to look at. We know that far more whites are shot by police than blacks. We know that more blacks are shot percentage wise than whites, since blacks make up far less of the population. We also know that blacks commit far more crime percentage wise. When you look at the percentage of violent crime committed by all the different races and then you look at the percentages of those people that the police shoot, there is no evidence of anything unusual.

There is no evidence of any bias on the part of the police in the people they shoot. In another words, if 100 black people assault a cop and 100 white people assault a cop, there is no credible evidence that the police would shoot more black people than white people. If you have any evidence that says the opposite, I'd love to see it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There is plenty of info right there in what you just provided. It says, "During that 14-year period, there were 3,333 white people shot and killed during legal interventions, 1,270 blacks, 111 Asians and 105 Native Americans." That is more than enough data to look at. We know that far more whites are shot by police than blacks. We know that more blacks are shot percentage wise than whites, since blacks make up far less of the population. We also know that blacks commit far more crime percentage wise. When you look at the percentage of violent crime committed by all the different races and then you look at the percentages of those people that the police shoot, there is no evidence of anything unusual.

There is no evidence of any bias on the part of the police in the people they shoot. In another words, if 100 black people assault a cop and 100 white people assault a cop, there is no credible evidence that the police would shoot more black people than white people. If you have any evidence that says the opposite, I'd love to see it.

There has been study after study discussed in the press regarding bias against blacks. From kindergàrten to high school, stop and frisk in NY where whites more often had contraband, but blacks were stopped far more often...same with Ferguson, then there's disparity in court, sentencing, bias in who gets the death penalty. Bias is in every part of the criminal justice system.
Google it, look it up.
I have read plenty on the subject, which is why I know all that. And I am sure to read studies by viable groups with rock hard stats, not crap where someone has no data on 25% of his supposed subject, and then narrows it down with a subset, all so he can get the result he sought. Reminds me of the guy who did the vaccine ’study' which has since been debunked.
Look up harvards racial bias study for a start. Or Stanford, the professor earned a MacArthur fellowship award.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

There has been study after study discussed in the press regarding bias against blacks. From kindergàrten to high school, stop and frisk in NY where whites more often had contraband, but blacks were stopped far more often...same with Ferguson, then there's disparity in court, sentencing, bias in who gets the death penalty. Bias is in every part of the criminal justice system.
Google it, look it up.
I have read plenty on the subject, which is why I know all that. And I am sure to read studies by viable groups with rock hard stats, not crap where someone has no data on 25% of his supposed subject, and then narrows it down with a subset, all so he can get the result he sought. Reminds me of the guy who did the vaccine ’study' which has since been debunked.
Look up harvards racial bias study for a start. Or Stanford, the professor earned a MacArthur fellowship award.

I don't disagree with most of that. I think there is plenty of evidence that racial profiling exists in many areas. I don't deny that. There has been a history of bias in the criminal justice system in many areas. I don't deny that. But when it comes to shooting violent criminals, I don's see any evidence of a bias.

You keep repeating yourself with regard to some missing data. We could do an experiment on anything. It could be on any subject. It wouldn't matter what we were analyzing. If we had a big random sample, the study would be valid. We would not have to have complete data. I will give you an example. Let's say there is a traffic light that takes over 5 minutes to change. It takes so long for it to change, that many people get fed up and jaywalk when the light is red. If we wanted to figure out what percentage of people jaywalk at that light, do you think we would need to count every person for a year? Of course not. If we counted for just a couple of days and counted 1,000 people, that would probably be a plenty big enough sample to get a very good idea of what percentage of people are jaywalking that light. If we saw that 50 people jaywalked out of 1,000, that would tell us that 5% of the people jaywalk. That would a big enough sample to have fairly accurate data. If we counted 5,000 people, we would still get the same result. If we counted 5,000 people but then we lost the data on the final 1,000 people, would that change our result? Of course not. As long as you have a good size random sample, you don't need complete data. The percentages are not going to change.