The science of racism

The correlation does not imply causation argument does not apply here, because we're talking Beysian modeling. Read the study.

They didn't address that question, but I also don't see why they should considering having a prior is no reason to be shot when unarmed.

im lazy

does this the trend hold when considering all cops or just whitey melanin seeking killer cops

Are you trying to say the behavior of those shot did not affect the situation?

I'm saying the behavior could not have been such to warrant getting shot, given the fact that the suspect was unarmed. Having a prior or not doesn't change that.

They did not consider the race of the officers in question. It's about police bias in general, not just white police bias.

This is a librul conspiracy perpetrated by the academics who have been brainwashed by marxist propaganda with the aim of persecuting the white race.
...is what certain people on this site would say.

At any rate, this is very interesting, thanks for sharing.

>Finally, analysis of police shooting
data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is
most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median
incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial
inequality in that county.

Well, be more suspicious in general. Search is a bit specific. Plus including the fact that gangs exist and there are (surely?) more black gangs than white gangs despite the population differences.

That still doesn't justify shooting someone who's unarmed. I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp.

Resisting arrest/failure to comply doesn't carry a death sentence.

Yes, but that behavior goes hand in hand with being shot. My point is, some of the 3% could be accounted for by behavior of the suspect/criminal and not the racial bias of the police officer.

That sounds more like philosophy.
You could ask yourself if the "cause" then is poorly trained/educated police or bad behavior of someone interacting with police.

That's not philosophy. That's probability, which is technically math. Either way, that's not an issue of being poorly trained. Lethal force is a fine response to someone who does not comply and is a potential threat.

To claim racism, both races need to be similar in their crime statistics, attitude, etc.. and the police would have to treat one race with more prejudice if you want to have any ground basis for a racim claim.
But black people commit crimes more than any other race by a landslide, which forces police to be more alert against black people and black populated areas. It's a very easy logic to follow really.

>3%
3.49 times as likely. So it's 349%. Suspect behavior is unlikely to account for all or even the majority of that variance.

>some of the 3% could be accounted for by behavior
>there's no checking of instances of resisting arrest or failing to comply

Yeah, no. Does not sound like statistics.
You actually need data for statistics.
It actually is philosophy if you just claim something that you can not back up with numbers yourself. Or at least a theory based on a more plausible basis than "I think ... "

>Lethal force is a fine response to someone who does not comply
No it isn't, unless under very specific circumstances. There are rules for that shit. You have other options when someone isn't armed, like tasering or pepper spray.

So, things that are hard to collect as data are usually checked by some metric. For wellbeing, we check things like height of a population, reported wellbeing, income, etc. For something like this, we would need to check reports of failure to comply, or as someone else said , prior records of breaking the law.

Yep, misread that.

I don't know where you come from, or how much experience you have with law enforcement, but pepper spray and tasers are not good tools against someone who is considered dangerous. Those are unreliable.

A cop tells you to get on the ground. You don't. So the cop can shoot you in the face?

No dude, that qualifies as homicide.

>pepper spray and tasers are not good tools against someone who is considered dangerous
That's why they're only used on people who are considered outstanding citizens, I suppose? Are you retarded?

Yes I do not doubt that you would need that data to back up your argument. That's basically what I said.
I would see truth in your argument if you'd actually have data upon you could use some form of metric but for the time being you just postulate something without actually providing anything that would make it anything but philosophy.

If you are armed (or suspected to be armed), and a cop tells you to get on the ground, and you do not, it is in the best interest of everyone around that you get on the ground or are disabled. Using a gun and shooting center body mass is the most reliable way, and even then (some drug fueled scenarios) this will not help.

Where do you come from that police officers use pepper spray or tasers against someone that has a firearm, out of curiosity?

I'm not making an argument, I'm saying that could potentially be seen in the data. I'm not going out to do it myself, I'm just saying its something not included that could change the result if it were. That's not philosophy, I don't know why you keep saying that.

>If you are armed
We are talking strictly about situations in which the subject was demonstrably unarmed.
>(or suspected to be armed)
The argument of police bias still holds if you're saying that black people are incorrectly suspected to be armed 3 times as likely as white people.

>Where do you come from that police officers use pepper spray or tasers against someone that has a firearm, out of curiosity?
Re-read the OP.
>being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police}
>unarmed

The word philosophy can mean an opinion/view/belief.
It's something that you cannot really prove/disprove as you just state your view/opinion thus making it on my view an invalid argument as I think a argument should follow logic.
Then again there are several philosophies on logic.

Maybe it is uncommon to use the word philosophy in this context or somewhat old fashioned. But now I hope you understand what I meant to say.

So black people attack cops more often and provoke violent responses? Good to know.

You guys really should read the study before you comment.
> there is no consistent relationship between the race-specific crime proxies (neither assault-related nor weapons-related arrest rates) and racial bias in police shootings
i.e. interpretations in terms of race-specific violence towards officers or prior convictions etc cannot explain the data.

Racism is pretty normal under the condition where one race is substantially committing more crimes than the other race. Go and look at yourself before accusing other races of racism for not tolerating your crime waves.

Moron. No one is accusing any *race* of racism. This is about institutional racism.

>If you're too lazy to read it,
Fuck you, OP.
I'm barely interested in your original post, given its length.
Do you honestly expect me to go read a 34 page PDF just to discuss it with you?
How bout this: does the study look at the race of the officers that do the shooting?

> Moron. No one is accusing any *race* of racism
Then who's being racist here ?

If you're going to say that it's too long to discuss, then don't engage in the discussion. But since you did, I'll indulge you.
> does the study look at the race of the officers that do the shooting?
No, it's about police bias, regardless of race of the officer. A black officer can also be biassed against blacks.
See above.

What ? The cops ? I told you why they naturally have to be more prejudicial. Especially when their lives depend on it.

>they naturally have to be more prejudicial
We've talked about this. I'll just copy what I wrote earlier, since you seem to have missed it.
>That still doesn't justify shooting someone who's unarmed. I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp.

It doesn't justify cops getting shot at either. We don't have a system where everything works perfectly. But on one side you have thugs and criminals, on the other side you have cops who catch these criminals, rapists, thieves, etc... It's not a matter of justification. Unless you've got a solution like cops wearing xray glasses to see if someone got a gun or not, they will be alert all the time.
And apparently even thats not enough to preserve their lives apparently since they can get sniped and ambushed by coward assholes.

You're veering off track here. Did you have anything to add in terms of an actual argument?

There is nothing to argue. I just said what you're asking is one-sided and doesn't make sense.

>blacks commit disproportional amounts of violent crime
>every year thousands of blacks get killed by other blacks
>police are more weary of them
>once in a blue moon cops kill an innocent black guy
>all hell breaks loose

Ignoring the usual hypocrisy.
>b-but local level crime
Bizarre, people don't exist in a vacuum and will be aware of crime rates outside of their county or even state. Also

>It is notable that Miami-Dade (FL, contains Miami), Los Angeles (CA, contains Los Angeles), and Orleans Parish (LA, contains New Orleans), stand out as counties where the ratio of {black, unarmed, and shot by police} to {white, unarmed, and shot by police} is elevated to 22.88
All areas with lots of black and drug crime, it's no surprise that the police in those areas are more trigger happy.

It doesn't make sense to ask for unarmed people not to get gunned down? Your view is too narrow, considering the US is pretty much the only first world country with such excesses. What I'm asking doesn't only make sense, it's common place in the civilized world that isn't the US.

>Ignoring the usual hypocrisy.
Clearly not, as you explicitly pointed it out. It's completely besides the point of the current discussion, however.
>All areas with lots of black and drug crime, it's no surprise that the police in those areas are more trigger happy.
Except that argument doesn't hold up statistically, as already covered in the OP.

So whats your solution thats gonna keep both the civilians and police alive ?

Mass restrictions on firearms, and proper police training to prevent bias. And before you say it's not feasible, it's been done before in other countries (e.g. Australia and Norway).

Restricting weapons by law only applies to the people who abide law. Thats why criminals mostly prey on gun-free areas so theres nobody to stop them. Guns get shipped off the black market, they get stolen and distributed among gang-members, they are imported from outside.

Basically there are tons of ways for criminals to get their hands on weapons if they ever want it.

Police are trained to be bias against statistically more dangerous people and areas. Thats what saves their lives and thats what makes sense.

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DqQNfjf4zKAJ:www.forcescience.org/forcepresentation.ppt &cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
>Research Question 3: How many deaths of black men occur annually from police use of force?

>Answer: Approximately 120 per year, or 1 out of every 173,871 black males in the U.S.

>Answer: Approximately equal to only a third of Americans struck by lightning each year, which is 373.

STOP. ASSAULT. LIGHTNINGS
Seriously though, just read this pretty much explains everything.

>Basically there are tons of ways for criminals to get their hands on weapons if they ever want it.
This is a non-argument that keeps getting perpetuated, and wouldn't if people would take a second to think about it. Explain to me how Australia and Norway completely abolished gun-related crime. If criminals are able to get guns regardless, why did banning all firearms prevent gun violence in those countries? This is a prime example of an empirical question that has already been answered, but people blatantly ignore the answer.

You are basically cherrypicking examples of countries where there are no predominant gangs or constant tension. America is a huge diverse place.

Mexico also banned guns. Not just rifles but all kinds of firearms, pistols and they are incredibly strict about their gun laws.
So America has 10.54 Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year, where as Mexico has 7.64. So your prime example of a system where there is a totalitarian regulation on gun bans are almost on par with US where you can buy guns in walmart. So thats the huge missing part in your gun law ideology.

How about we kick the donut moochers off our payroll, give all concealed carry, and use the rest of property tax for a yearly bonus for everyone based on %income divided by (# of created offspring)
^
Absolutely wacko, somebody arrest this wrongthinking liberal conservative

Except Mexico has pretty much no system whatsoever in place to enforce the law. The US is a developed countrie, and in many ways the situation is the same as it was in Australia prior to their ban.

Sorry but that doesn't remotely guarantee any criminal to not get their hands on weapons by any other means. I don't even want to imagine a scenario where nobody has guns and only the criminals have. It just leaves them a huge open door to commit maybe the worlds biggest rampage style sidearm massacre history has ever witnessed.

no you can't conclude it's due to racism like that. Consider:

>black people tend to be clustered in shittier neighborhoods
>better cop have better offers for neighborhoods they can survey and will obviously choose the nicer part of town
so really shit quality of cops with poor trigger discipline get sent to more troubled neighborhoods and since the distribution of race happens to be this way we act surprised.