Police officers threaten to boycott 49ers over Kaepernick protest

[?Impact]

The number of times the police interact with suspects is a function of the number of times they are involved in crimes.

Obviously someone totally missed the entire issue.

[TimG]

Obviously someone totally missed the entire issue.

And you are obviously fails to see the futility of protesting something while ignoring the "elephant in the room". Edited September 8, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Sigh...

You can explain it to people. You can't understand it for them.

[cybercoma]

My objection is the assertion that black crime rates are not a factor that contributes to the relatively larger number of blacks who are killed by police

Here's the problem with your assertion. Even if we accept the misleading number that black people are 3 to 4 times more likely to be involved in violent crime (the issues of reporting needs to be addressed elsewhere), that still does not address the fact that they're twenty times more likely to be killed by police. It's vastly disproportionate, even when considering they're more likely to be involved in violent crime.

More importantly, the point that's being made here is about unarmed people being killed by the police. Nobody's talking about police taking down armed suspects in order to protect their own lives and the lives of the people around them. Take a look at this table.

In proportion to their demographics black people are vastly more likely to be shot by cops when they are unarmed than white people. They're killed at a rate that's over 20% greater than their demographic, while white people are shot at a rate that's nearly 17% less than their demographic. Here's a bar chart that shows even better how disproportionate the force is. And again, we're talking about unarmed killings.

The pattern in the data is indisputable. Young black men are disproportionately murdered by the police in the United States. Even accepting their higher involvement in crime, which is disputable given the nature of data collection and crime reporting statistics, the force used against them is still vastly disproportionate.

That's the problem. If all lives matter, then all lives would be taken by police proportional to their demographics and involvement in crime. That's absolutely not the case with black people. That's why there's a Black Lives Matter movement because clearly they matter a hell of a lot less than white lives when you look at the numbers.

[cybercoma]

But this affects all races equally.

Absolutely and completely wrong. There is no way to look at the statistics and come to this conclusion.

[TimG]

In proportion to their demographics black people are vastly more likely to be shot by cops when they are unarmed than white people. They're killed at a rate that's over 20% greater than their demographic, while white people are shot at a rate that's nearly 17% less than their demographic. Here's a bar chart that shows even better how disproportionate the force is. And again, we're talking about unarmed killings.

Now we are getting into a relevant discussion. And as always, the devil is in the details:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler

The unarmed label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officers gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Posts unarmed black victims category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.

The pattern in the data is indisputable. Young black men are disproportionately murdered by the police in the United States. Even accepting their higher involvement in crime, which is disputable given the nature of data collection and crime reporting statistics, the force used against them is still vastly disproportionate.

And young black men are dispropropotionately more likely to kill cops:

5. Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. This is according to FBI data, which also found that 40 percent of cop killers are black. According to Mac Donald, the police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an unarmed black person.

So if police act like they fear black suspects more it is with good reason.

The problem for your narrative is it may be satisfying to call all cops racists but it does not actually accomplish anything because reality is much more complex. Accomplishing something requires a more nuanced view of the problem.

As I mentioned before I think these high level proposals are an excellent start:

http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision

And none of them talk about race.

Why are you so obsessed with the race question?

Edited September 8, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

Obviously someone totally missed the entire issue.

What is the issue? As far as I'm aware the issue is BLM claims that police are shooting Black men more often than they ought to given the numbers of Black men in society.

However, while statistically true, as he said, how often police are in conflict with a group is a factor of how often that group is in conflict with the law. You cannot use the first statistic and then ignore the context for it.

[Bonam]

Here's the problem with your assertion. Even if we accept the misleading number that black people are 3 to 4 times more likely to be involved in violent crime (the issues of reporting needs to be addressed elsewhere), that still does not address the fact that they're twenty times more likely to be killed by police. It's vastly disproportionate, even when considering they're more likely to be involved in violent crime.

More importantly, the point that's being made here is about unarmed people being killed by the police. Nobody's talking about police taking down armed suspects in order to protect their own lives and the lives of the people around them. Take a look at this table.

In proportion to their demographics black people are vastly more likely to be shot by cops when they are unarmed than white people. They're killed at a rate that's over 20% greater than their demographic, while white people are shot at a rate that's nearly 17% less than their demographic. Here's a bar chart that shows even better how disproportionate the force is. And again, we're talking about unarmed killings.

The pattern in the data is indisputable. Young black men are disproportionately murdered by the police in the United States. Even accepting their higher involvement in crime, which is disputable given the nature of data collection and crime reporting statistics, the force used against them is still vastly disproportionate.

That's the problem. If all lives matter, then all lives would be taken by police proportional to their demographics and involvement in crime. That's absolutely not the case with black people. That's why there's a Black Lives Matter movement because clearly they matter a hell of a lot less than white lives when you look at the numbers.

Looking at that data, it shows that an unarmed black person is 3.5x more likely to be shot by police than an unarmed white person. You also mention that black people are 3-4x more likely to be involved in violent crime (issues with reporting and socioeconomic causes aside). If the statistic is true, then one would expect that, based on their own experience and perceptions, a police officer might be 3-4x more likely to fear that a black suspect might commit a violent act as a white suspect. That would account for the 3.5x higher rate at which a police officer might react with the use of a firearm.

So yes, police are wrong to extrapolate from their experiences with the black community in general to their snap decisions when dealing with individuals, but it's also not particularly surprising based on this data, which shows the same 3-4x factor both in crime rates and in rates of being shot by police.

Furthermore, I'd say that the fact that there is a 3-4x factor for both crime rates and rates of being shot by police suggests that racism is not a major factor in police actions, rather, they react equally based on the perceived threat level, whether dealing with white suspects or black suspects. The problem, therefore, seems to clearly be with police training that makes them too ready to use a firearm in situations where a firearm may not be necessary, regardless of the race of the person they are dealing with.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

And young black men are dispropropotionately more likely to kill cops:

So if police act like they fear black suspects more it is with good reason.

When is the last time you've heard of an unarmed person murdering a cop in the streets? We are talking about police disproportionately killing unarmed young black men. You say it's reasonable for them to fear black people more because they're more likely to be killed by them. You tell me how that plays into a support worker sitting with an autistic man, doing absolutely nothing aggressive, and getting shot for it.

[cybercoma]

Looking at that data, it shows that an unarmed black person is 3.5x more likely to be shot by police than an unarmed white person. You also mention that black people are 3-4x more likely to be involved in violent crime (issues with reporting and socioeconomic causes aside). If the statistic is true, then one would expect that, based on their own experience and perceptions, a police officer might be 3-4x more likely to fear that a black suspect might commit a violent act as a white suspect. That would account for the 3.5x higher rate at which a police officer might react with the use of a firearm.

So yes, police are wrong to extrapolate from their experiences with the black community in general to their snap decisions when dealing with individuals, but it's also not particularly surprising based on this data, which shows the same 3-4x factor both in crime rates and in rates of being shot by police.

Furthermore, I'd say that the fact that there is a 3-4x factor for both crime rates and rates of being shot by police suggests that racism is not a major factor in police actions, rather, they react equally based on the perceived threat level, whether dealing with white suspects or black suspects. The problem, therefore, seems to clearly be with police training that makes them too ready to use a firearm in situations where a firearm may not be necessary, regardless of the race of the person they are dealing with.

You might want to check that factor again. White people are shot proportionately less than their demographics, while black men are shot proportionately more. The difference between black men and white men is far greater than 3-4x. Overall, black men are 20x more likely to be shot by cops. The figures I showed in the post you're replying to is only unarmed encounters.

[TimG]

When is the last time you've heard of an unarmed person murdering a cop in the streets?

Most cops do not shoot people unless they believe there is a threat. And, as the article I quoted above says, the definition of 'unarmed' is pretty fluid and there are cases where shooting an "unarmed man" is completely justified. So you really need to stop harping on the unarmed aspect of the question since is more a symptom of the problem rather than problem itself.

More importantly, the fact that blacks are more likely to be cop killers will impact the threat assessment. This is a natural human instinct whether you want to admit it or not. Now I agree that better training in threat assessment and de-escalation is an absolute must. They also needs to be real consequences for cops that fail to properly assess threats. I just don't agree that "racism" the main problem we need to worry about.

Edited September 9, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

You rationalize it away however you need to in order to feel better about it. The fact of the matter is unarmed is defined the same for blacks and whites in the data and there's a very clear discrepancy between groups.

have no doubt in my mind that some cops feel more threatened by black people, as you say. That's exactly the problem. They're quick to pull the trigger when a person is black but not so quick when they're white. That is white privilege, whether you want to believe it exists or not. Cops make prejudiced assumptions based on race and it has deadly consequences if you're black. The privilege that a white person has in this situation is being far less likely to be murdered by a cop. There's a very clear pattern in the data. That pattern shows that cops give white people the benefit of the doubt and they don't hesitate to kill black people. You keep bringing up black criminality and it's irrelevant. Even given their more frequent interactions with the police, the number of them killed by cops is still disproportionate compared to white people.

And as an aside, you want to sit here and talk about contextualizing the numbers, how we can't know what "unarmed" means. Yet, you don't give that consideration to the numbers when they show black people's interactions with cops. Again, giving the benefit of the doubt to the cops and not giving any benefit of the doubt whatsoever to black communities. Black people have more interactions with police because their communities are policed more. They're stopped and profiled more frequently than white people even when they're doing nothing illegal. When they are caught doing something, it's not seen as a "minor transgression" or a "mistake" as it is when a white kid does it. You really think that rapist swimmer would have been treated so leniently if it was a black guy who raped a white girl? Black people have higher figures because at every stage of the legal process they're shown less leniency. Doing the same things as white people, they're more likely to be stopped; once stopped they're more likely to be arrested; once arrested they're more likely to be prosecuted; once prosecuted they're more likely to be found guilty at trial; once found guilty they're more likely to face harsher sentencing; once on probation they're more likely to have stricter probation rules; and then it comes full circle where their communities are policed more and they're stopped more frequently, making probation violations far more likely. All of that is easily demonstrated through the data. The research is out there if you care to take two seconds to look into it. However, your bias is pretty damn glaring when you'll contextualize the statistics to suit your own position but can't stop for one second and see how the rest of it is contextualized.

And for the record, it's not my or anyone else's responsibility to explain these things to you. You don't have to believe that black people are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than white people. It's a fact whether you want to believe it or not. You don't have to believe that they're murdered at a disproportionate rate or not. I really don't care what you believe. The reality is right there in the data for anyone to see. Black Lives Matter is just a group that is vocalizing something black people have known for generations. It's only shocking to white people who have the privilege of burying their heads in the sand and not seeing the problem because it's not a problem that they face. It's right there in the data I presented to you. Cops are actually disproportionately lenient towards white people. You can see that the direction of the proportions is completely flipped. And that's fine if you want to ignore that. You've got the privilege to do that when it's not your friends and family who are at a far greater risk of being murdered by a cop when they've done nothing wrong and have no weapons on them.

Edited September 9, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

The fact of the matter is unarmed is defined the same for blacks and whites in the data and there's a very clear discrepancy between groups.

It is also true that 'unarmed' does not mean 'unjustified'. And we have absolutely no data on the distribution of 'unarmed-unjustified' shootings between groups. With no data we can assume that they are distributes equally but that is just an assumption. Not a fact.

More importantly, statistics can be sliced many ways to tell different stories.

For example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=1

Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black. This estimate was not precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But in various models controlling for different factors and using different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.

...

In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.

Note that this study does confirm a bias in non-lethal use of force so it does support part of your narrative.

Just not the part that blacks are being killed by cops in greater numbers that whites.

So please spare me your condescending claims of fact when the real picture is much more cloudy.

This is one of the reasons why I think it is simply stupid to focus on the race aspect of the problem.

It also completely counter productive to call police racists when many are really acting on unconscious fear driven partially by stereotypes but also partially by the high rate of crime involvement by blacks.

If you want to change attitudes a confrontational approach is not helpful.

The reality is right there in the data for anyone to see.

As I pointed out with the link above: the data is not as clear as you wish to believe. Insisting that the data supports what makes you feel better about yourself is the only "correct" data is a hallmark of a zealot. You should note that despite my skepticism on your race obsession I do agree there is a problem that needs fixing. I provided a link to a site that outlines some high level objectives which I think are a constructive approach to dealing with the problem. But I guess you are not interested in constructive solutions. You would rather get on your high horse, wave cherry picked stats and whine about white privilege. Edited September 9, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Tim if you confuse me saying blacks are killed at a disproportionate rate with blacks are killed in greater numbers, we can't even have a discussion because you don't understand what we're talking about.

[Argus]

How many murders of black people is the BLM movement responsible for?

The severe spike in gun violence Chicago is experiencing can be dated to the release of the video in the Laquan McDonald case, a FiveThirtyEight analysis of crime data shows. The same analysis shows that the city has seen a significant drop in arrests made for homicides and nonfatal shootings, as well as other crimes, since the video’s release on Nov. 24. This suggests a decline in law enforcement activity that may be contributing to the rise in gun crime.

http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-lives-matter-protests-responsible-for-violent-crime-spike-in-chicago

"You know, they're damned when they put people on the wall and search them ... if they have weapons on them, and now they're being blamed for not putting people on the wall to search them to see if they have weapons on them," he says.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/11/469974819/chicago-murder-rate-spikes-less-aggressive-policing-blamed

Edited September 9, 2016 by Argus

[TimG]

Tim if you confuse me saying blacks are killed at a disproportionate rate with blacks are killed in greater numbers, we can't even have a discussion because you don't understand what we're talking about.

Now you are just being pendantic. I posted quotes from a study that clearly state there is no evidence that blacks are *disproportionately* shot at by police. And you complain about the text I added below where i said 'greater numbers'. Any reasonable person would ignore the obvious typo and address the relevant point which is the study that shows your claims of 'clearly evident data showing disproportionate black deaths at the hands of police' are BS.

The data is not clear. It is at least contradictory which makes it useless as a basis for any discussion.

[cybercoma]

You've moved the goalposts to "shot at" whether lethal or not. The data I provided shows a clear pattern of disproportionately lethal force against unarmed black men. The study you posted even lends support to the idea that black people are treated more harshly by the police, as it notes they're more likely to be struck, knocked down, pushed against walls, and generally manhandled by cops. You're only further supporting the point that police do in fact treat black men more harshly in the same situations. That's what this study you posted found. Couple that with the clear pattern of police murdering unarmed black people and the problem is clear as day. Black men need to worry about cops in a way that white people don't. If you can't admit that then it's not even worth discussing the issue with you because you're ignoring the data.

[cybercoma]

Is it really so hard to understand that we're talking about the least justifiable shootings here? We're not talking about cops shooting some guy waving a gun in their face or trying to stab them. We're talking about the disproportionate amount of black men killed by cops when they're unarmed.

Regardless, you should read this article by Justin Feldman, a PhD candidate and social epidemiologist from Harvard. He addresses the problems with Fryer's research.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police

His summary:

Fryers study is far from the first to investigate racial bias or discrimination in police shootings. A number of studies have placed officers in shooting simulators, and most have shown a greater propensity for shooting black civilians relative to whites. Other research has found that cities with black mayors and city councilors have lower rates of police shootings than would otherwise be expected. A recent analysis of national data showed wide variation in racial disparities for police shooting rates between counties, and these differences were not associated with racial differences in crime rates. This is just a small sample of the dozens of studies on police killings published since the 1950s, most of which suggests that racial bias is indeed a problem.

It is a failure of journalism that the New York Times heavily promoted this study without seeking critical perspectives from experts in the field. Fryer makes basic methodological errors, overstates the quality of his results, and casually uses the term racial bias in a way that is nearly guaranteed to be misinterpreted by anyone who isnt an economist.

I encourage you to read it on the site, as many of the claims are linked to their corresponding studies and articles. Feldman doesn't mention it but it should also be noted that Fryer's study has not passed peer review yet and with the considerable problems with the study, he's going to have a lot of work to do to make it presentable. The way the article was published in the NYT wouldn't fly because the claims are far too misleading.

Edited September 10, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

You've moved the goalposts to "shot at" whether lethal or not.

Are you really trying to argue that cops aim better when shooting at black suspects? Do be ridiculous. Shooting at suspects has to be directly correlated with deaths and the data contradicts your data. IOW, there is not a 'clear pattern'. There is only a pattern if you cherry pick which data you want to look it.

The study you posted even lends support to the idea that black people are treated more harshly by the police, as it notes they're more likely to be struck, knocked down, pushed against walls, and generally manhandled by cops.

And I acknowledged that but the question we are debating is whether actual killings are disproportionate and the fact that my study finds there was no evidence. That fact that it also found evidence of imbalance in non-lethal force suggests that the study was done by someone that really cared about what the data said and was not interested in flogging a POV.

Regardless, you should read this article by Justin Feldman, a PhD candidate and social epidemiologist from Harvard. He addresses the problems with Roland's research.

Of course people with other POVs are going to nitpik because every statistical study is fatally flawed in one way or another. That does not mean the results are less valid than the results you prefer.

A recent analysis of national data showed wide variation in racial disparities for police shooting rates between counties, and these differences were not associated with racial differences in crime rates.

So he claiming that data really says that come counties have a problem but others do not. That perspective is consistent Fryers work and is also makes intuitive sense since some cops are racist and they may cluster in some towns. That does not mean it is reasonable to go around ranting about how all cops are racist and how this this a national problem. Edited September 10, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Tim, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you when you're literally going out of your way to misconstrue the data in order to excuse the disproportionate amount of violence black people face from cops. If the data doesn't speak for itself to you, then there's nothing anyone can say to wash the disgusting bias out of your head. You don't understand the data analysis here. That much is certain. I've tried explaining it to you and the context of the numbers but you don't care. You want to remain blind to the disparities in the way police handle black and white people in the same situation and there's not a damn thing anyone can say to you to make you see the light. Remain blissfully ignorant. You have that privilege. Black people don't. I have nothing else to say to you about this. If you can't see the pattern in the numbers or you're so intent on explaining it away that you ignore what's clear as day, then that's not my problem. I can explain things to you but I can't understand them for you.

Edited September 10, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

you're literally going out of your way to misconstrue the data

I am not the one ignoring data that does not support my narrative. All I am doing is pointing out that the data is a lot less definitive than you want to believe and your claim that the data 'clearly shows that blacks are killed at disproportionate rate' is simply wrong. I am sorry that the messy real world interferes with your cherished narratives but that is what the data says.

to wash the disgusting bias out of your head. You don't understand the data analysis here.

I understand the analysis fine. Your problem is you are obsessed with creating a grand narrative that supports your victim-oppressor ideology and this means you absolutely refuse to acknowledge any information or data which cast doubt on your pretty little artificial constructs.

You want to remain blind to the disparities in the way police handle black and white people in the same situation

But I am not ignoring this point. I acknowledged this point when I first posted the NYT study. If you want to move the goal posts and talk about disparities in policing styles we can. But any such discussion must include a discussion of how the fact that blacks are disproportionately more likely to kill cops impacts the psychology of police officers. Edited September 10, 2016 by TimG

[jacee]

What a stupid strawman. I've never suggested any such thing. It's not okay for the police to shoot anyone innocent, regardless of skin colour.

However, it's very rare anyone innocent gets shot by police.

There have been quite a few. Thus the protests.

.

[Argus]

There have been quite a few. Thus the protests.

.

There have been a VERY few. Protests? So what? Blacks rioted in Cleveland after a Black cop shot an armed Black criminal.

[Guest]

Quite often any excuse to get a new TV is a good excuse.

[Big Guy]

Looks like Big Guy was right in post #59 in this thread.