Baltimore riots

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

it's not an experiment. data is not collected. not sure why you can't get that.

at any rate, this is going nowhere. you have a good weekend. may all your tickets be winners.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ustrating.html