Debunked
Blacks more likely to have force used against them, but no more likely to have deadly force use against them than anyone else.
http://www.economist.com/news/united...ng-black-lives
Mr Fryer dug deeper into the data. He combed through 6,000 incident reports from Houston, including all the shootings, incidents involving Tasers and a sample in which lethal force could have justifiably been used but was not. What he found was even more startling: black suspects appear less likely to be shot than non-black ones, fatally or otherwise.
Last edited by ErnestLynch; 07-21-2016 at 03:47 PM.
Debunked
Link?
I'd love to read some mid-20's poly-sci/journalism major on Salon debunk the work of a McArthur genius economist from Harvard
triggered
How dare you forget Salon
"If Freyer’s conclusions are correct, then while police may be less willing to use lethal force against a black person in a given encounter, there are so many encounters because of racial profiling or other causes () that the country’s police are still killing black people at much higher rates than whites.
These disparities in use of force can not be explained away by the argument that blacks disproportionately live in high crime areas or supposedly () commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, thus the likelihood of negative police encounters are substantially increased.
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/14/sorry_conservatives_new_research_from_harvard_show s_a_profound_amount_of_racism_by_policenot_less_of _it/
That's great. Except none of those "debunk" it.
The snopes piece doesn't offer a conclusion at all and mainly summarizes a Washington post editorial and the Vox piece you copy pasted.
The Vox piece had a lot of superficial complaints. They criticize Fryers work because fryer supposedly claimed that he was the first person to research or study the issue. I don't think fryer ever made that claim outright. Vox also complained that fryer used police reports as his data source. But they didn't actually debunk or disprove any of his findings. Vox also pointed out that Fryer didn't investigate the causes of stops, though I'm pretty sure Fryers piece outright notes that flaw in his paper.
And the mediamatters piece mainly discusses the scope and sample size of the data... Which again Fryer already acknowledged as a flaw in his work.
Nothing he said has been "debunked" but no, it's not a complete comprehensive study of every police shooting in the country. It never claimed to be.
You guys sent bou to his safe space
How many reports of white adults and kids being shot on sight?
How many 100Ks of whites are stopped and frisked?
Blacks like this guy Fryer, Clarence Thomas, Milwaukee police chief, are blacks worst "advocates".
Fryer looked at data and reported it. If you read his background (I'll link you his wiki summary), and still decide he's a horrible black advocate, then I pity you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer,_Jr.
Video: Austin police body-slam black teacher, tell her blacks have ‘violent tendencies’
Officials in Austin are investigating the violent arrest of a black elementary school teacher who was body-slammed by a white police officer during a traffic stop.
The investigation comes after the emergence of police video footage showing not only the June 2015 arrest but also a scene afterward, when another white officer told the teacher that cops are wary of blacks because of their “violent tendencies” and “intimidating” appearance.
“Ninety-nine percent of the time … it is the black community that is being violent,” the officer tells her. “That’s why a lot of white people are afraid. And I don’t blame them.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-draw7&wpmm=1
What's the problem, nationally, this happens to white female teachers much more often.
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
No then what is "A 'Harvard Study' Doesn't Disprove Racial Bias in Officer-Involved Shootings" doing in the le, jackass?
The vox piece complains about the veracity of the paper and data. Hardly superficial. Nice handwave though.
No problem
Produce a peer reviewed study that refutes it.
In this case you guys are the one with the burden of proof.
There is no reliable data. The FBI director has been complaining about it for years.
So you say it is the only attempt so far to sort the data and try to find a correlation between color and police shootings?
Bu since the results don't match your preconceptions it can't possibly be accurate?
That Milwaukee police chief is like Samuel Jackson's character in Django tbh ...
I never said vox only had superficial arguments. The one about him supposedly (he didn't) claiming he's the only one to who have ever studied the data was certainly superficial and was among their key criticisms.
The snopes le was in reference to the fact that it wasn't a vetted study, as the deck of the article indicates. The snopes piece didn't actually refute the data
the "data" is just Houston, and only the data reported by racist, near-Deep-South Houston cops. reliable?
Meant WaPo not Vox.
That's not what I said. I laid out my reasons in the post above the one I quoted. Shall I quote it to help you?
Bull . Shaun King has the data.
Share some data, your last three link dumps contained zero.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)