Black Harvard Professor and The Economist 15 year study

**z0sa** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

the "data" is just Houston, and only the data reported by racist, near-Deep-South Houston cops. reliable?

So all 5318 officers (2012 number) in the Houston PD are racists. Nice conspiracy theory, re .

**FuzzyLumpkins** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by z0sa

So all 5318 officers (2012 number) in the Houston PD are racists. Nice conspiracy theory, re .

While that is obviously true Texas is notorious for systemic racism particularly East Texas.

**boutons_deux** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by z0sa

So all 5318 officers (2012 number) in the Houston PD are racists. Nice conspiracy theory, re .

You rightwingnuts KNOW all Muslims are radicals terrorists

**z0sa** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

You rightwingnuts KNOW all Muslims are radicals terrorists

I'm a "rightwingnut" too.

Nice trolling.

**Clipper Nation** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Its not a study. it was not published in a peer review publication and its not even finished. correct term is working paper.
author is an economist with no criminology experience
small sample size without control or normalization; its handpicked counties in 4 states; basically places that were willing to cooperate
it relies on police reports which are notoriously unreliable due to self reporting issues and biasing
police unions fight a compulsory national database

If only he was as credible as Fraud King.

**pgardn** · 07-23-2016

A huge problem with the study noted in the article:

If we take just the incidents in which police actually made a decision to engage a person or persons then skin color is important. It could be that engaging a white person was done because there was something very obviously wrong in the first place that caused the officer to engage. It could be that the very slightest su ion caused an officer to stop or engage a black person. So basically the data is already skewed.

Note to fuzzy and others:

The fact that some on this board took the time to read and critize this particular ongoing study shows a bias. Would we be as critical if the study clearly confirmed my belief that blacks do get treated unfairly by cops?

I doubt it.

**TeyshaBlue** · 07-23-2016

Welcome to the echo chamber.

**spurraider21** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by pgardn

A huge problem with the study noted in the article:

If we take just the incidents in which police actually made a decision to engage a person or persons then skin color is important. It could be that engaging a white person was done because there was something very obviously wrong in the first place that caused the officer to engage. It could be that the very slightest su ion caused an officer to stop or engage a black person. So basically the data is already skewed.

Note to fuzzy and others:

The fact that some on this board took the time to read and critize this particular ongoing study shows a bias. Would we be as critical if the study clearly confirmed my belief that blacks do get treated unfairly by cops?

I doubt it.

yep, Fryer's original article clearly noted that he didn't account for the purpose behind the stops, but merely the ensuing treatment from officers AFTER stops. all these criticisms were already acknowledged

**Leetonidas** · 07-23-2016

is this just from Houston? because this study doesnt mean much if it's not externally valid imo

**FuzzyLumpkins** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by pgardn

A huge problem with the study noted in the article:

If we take just the incidents in which police actually made a decision to engage a person or persons then skin color is important. It could be that engaging a white person was done because there was something very obviously wrong in the first place that caused the officer to engage. It could be that the very slightest su ion caused an officer to stop or engage a black person. So basically the data is already skewed.

Note to fuzzy and others:

The fact that some on this board took the time to read and critize this particular ongoing study shows a bias. Would we be as critical if the study clearly confirmed my belief that blacks do get treated unfairly by cops?

I doubt it.

off. A bias towards what? An informed opinion?

If the study had a localized, small sample size, had a biased data source, and claimed to be a peer reviewed when in fact it was published in Ebony then you would get pushback. Your fantasy that there are not people avid on the other side is nonsense.

**Clipper Nation** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

off. A bias towards what? An informed opinion?

If the study had a localized, small sample size, had a biased data source, and claimed to be a peer reviewed when in fact it was published in Ebony then you would get pushback. Your fantasy that there are not people avid on the other side is nonsense.

You're the one who spent months spamming Fraud King's lies uncritically because they supported your narrative.

**pgardn** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by spurraider21

yep, Fryer's original article clearly noted that he didn't account for the purpose behind the stops, but merely the ensuing treatment from officers AFTER stops. all these criticisms were already acknowledged

Yep that's why I said noted in the article.

I think it's very important.

**pgardn** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

off. A bias towards what? An informed opinion?

If the study had a localized, small sample size, had a biased data source, and claimed to be a peer reviewed when in fact it was published in Ebony then you would get pushback. Your fantasy that there are not people avid on the other side is nonsense.

Biased in what you choose to look closely at you Fckn dimwitted twerp.
Its bigger than just this study.

Everyone does it. Don't try so hard to be special son.

**FuzzyLumpkins** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by pgardn

Biased in what you choose to look closely at you Fckn dimwitted twerp.
Its bigger than just this study.

Everyone does it. Don't try so hard to be special son.

Are you really going to play coy to the connotation of political bias on a political forum, dimwit? As I said, off.

**FuzzyLumpkins** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by Clipper Nation

You're the one who spent months spamming Fraud King's lies uncritically because they supported your narrative.

This is stupid. I posted one tweet where he had a picture of Brown's corpse and the position of the police truck. Since then your dumbass has been trying to pin that on me.

**pgardn** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Are you really going to play coy to the connotation of political bias on a political forum, dimwit? As I said, off.

Wtf are you babbling about?
Playing coy... Sure thing.

Why don't you sit and think about it a bit longer. You may surprise yourself no you won't..
And stop with the parrot response.

**FuzzyLumpkins** · 07-23-2016

Originally Posted by pgardn

Wtf are you babbling about?
Playing coy... Sure thing.

Why don't you sit and think about it a bit longer. You may surprise yourself no you won't..
And stop with the parrot response.

What do you think I meant when I said

A bias towards what? An informed opinion?