LogFAQs > #896637508

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

It was a Harvard study done a year or two back by a black professor looking to objectively prove police bias against black criminals in terms of gun violence. He was actually surprised by his results and considered not publishing them, but did so anyway in the name of truth.

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

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.

yeah I mean there was a lot of pushback from others when he released this study, though

http://datacolada.org/50
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police

I do see what you're saying, but one novel study being looked at by the NBER is not the same as something having been rigorously proven. It is something to consider, though.

I just think you (not literally you, but "people") can't use a study that shows that black kids are more likely to get detention and extrapolate to "black kids are more likely to get shot" because when it comes to the severity of punishment, there are WILDLY different conclusions in terms of racial disparity. The studies are valid, but the logical leap being made isn't.

EDIT: Also, while those counter-arguments are interesting, I can't help but feel that they're coming from a place of bias. The harvard link, for example, BEGINS with "There should be no argument that black and Latino people in Houston are much more likely to be shot by police compared to whites." That preconceived bias is going to taint any counter-argument.
---

"History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz