Fox didn't do the study, William and Mary College did.

 

Fox only reported it because the other media outlets won't because it won't fit their agenda of trying to make all white cops racist.

 

"Houston We Have a Problem"

 

Out of all the other media outlets, Fox is the only that reports this? Wow, the rest of the media world must not have a clue as to what is the complete truth from such prestigious unbiased studies being done. Momma always told me "it takes a joker to tell a joke". To each his own; believe what you want. Truth is, we have many other problems to solve along with this one.

"Houston We Have a Problem"

 

Out of all the other media outlets, Fox is the only that reports this? Wow, the rest of the media world must not have a clue as to what is the complete truth from such prestigious unbiased studies being done. Momma always told me "it takes a joker to tell a joke". To each his own; believe what you want. Truth is, we have many other problems to solve along with this one.

 

Your right, the other media outlets don't have a clue. Didn't you just watch the election and how the media was so wrong. Hahahaha

Yeah we have problems to solve and this is one that's big, look at the news.

Just for fun. How many of you think white cops wake up and say to them self "today I am going to kill a black person"?.

Even with the "facts", this is Fox opinionated trash. Targeting may be a strong word to use, but they definitely profile or misjudge which can lead to bad situations on both ends.

 

Wait, all white police profile black people?

 

Is that what you're saying?

Edited November 19, 20169 yr by True blue (and gold)
Rule 14

Just for fun. How many of you think white cops wake up and say to them self "today I am going to kill a black person"?.

 

Nobody here thinks that.

Just for fun. How many of you think white cops wake up and say to them self "today I am going to kill a black person"?.

 

I don't think any do. However, they don't have to wake up with that particular thought in order for there to be a problem.

How much did you actually read?

 

"White officers are significantly less likely than black officers to kill black suspects, and they are not statistically significantly different from Hispanic, other race, and unknown race police office"

 

And...

 

"The odds of a black suspect being killed by a black police officer are consistently greater than a white officer"

 

I read the abstract assuming it would summarize . Give me a few to read the full study.

 

BTW the first line of the report is wrong. BLM did not start as a result of Ferguson. I'll assume that's the only error.

I read the abstract assuming it would summarize . Give me a few to read the full study.

 

BTW the first line of the report is wrong. BLM did not start as a result of Ferguson. I'll assume that's the only error.

 

That has nothing to do with the results of the study.

That has nothing to do with the results of the study.

 

Thank you for that. I was simply pointing out a myth.

I started reading the report.

 

A few thoughts:

 

First thing that should jump out , regardless of what side you are on in this debate, is the line that says data is not good. Data is missing. Not all jurisdictions provide data. Important info such as race is left out. etc

 

This study claims they have all of the pertinent info for the study.

 

"The percentage of suspects killed who were white and Hispanic rose,

while the percentage of those who were black remained virtually unchanged. At least over recent

history, the evidence does not support the hypothesis that police are targeting blacks more now

than they did in the past. However, the fact that blacks have historically been overrepresented in

police homicides could be indicative of racial bias."

 

We always need to be careful in reading what the math is saying. The above is a "relative" measure and not an absolute. Let's say I had a 50 average in my science class and I got a 51 this quarter. The average remained "virtually unchanged." It doesn't mean I am now doing well. So without a baseline we don't know how to interpret the above. The last line though , while an opinion, is not a relative measure. It says there could be a bias.

 

In all four models, black officers are significantly more likely than white officers to shoot a black

suspect

 

Unknown race officers do not kill black suspects at a different rate than white officers.

Given that this unknown group likely contains a greater share of black officers than their share of

all police officers, the result that unknown officers are less likely to kill black suspects than

whites raises caution concerning any conclusions that black officers kill black suspects at a

higher rate than other officers

 

Last sentence seems to be very important and seems to say you can't hang your hat on the "black officers kill more...." point. It's the challenge with picking sentences out of a conclusion.

 

 

Then it says this:

 

Whatever the racial composi-

tion of the unknown group, the coefficients are always approximately equal to, and insignifi-

cantly different from, the coefficient on white officers, which implies that black police officers

do not kill black suspects at a lower rate than white officers.

 

This gets back to the challenge of data collection.

 

Then this:

 

The results are again consistent with the race neutral hypothesis for white officers. When we in-

clude the relevant variables in the model, the coefficients indicate that black officers are at least

as likely to kill black suspects than either white, Hispanic, other, or officers of unknown race in

both models, though the difference between black and white officers is only statistically signifi-

cant in Model 2. The rate that black officers kill blacks is statistically significant greater than the

rates for the coefficients on Hispanic, other, or unknown officers in both Models 1 and 2

.

 

I point this out for a few reasons. One it supports that white officers are not biased when it comes to killing blacks but also it points out how reports use different variables which tells that looking at the results without knowing the methodology is dangerous.

 

My head was starting to spin a bit so I didn't read past that.

 

My earlier point stands , though, in regards to this study supporting or not supporting the contention of "being targeted." Being targeted is not only when the result is death. How many police interactions are there that do not result in death? 99%? Those 99% would need to be studied in order to support the "targeted" claim one way or the other.

Thank you for that. I was simply pointing out a myth.

 

Ok.

Wait, all white police profile black people?

 

Is that what you're saying?

No. That's what you just said. When I say "they", I'm referring to the actual officers that are guilty of the profiling being discussed here.

No. That's what you just said. When I say "they", I'm referring to the actual officers that are guilty of the profiling being discussed here.

 

That was not clear in your OP.

You'll pardon me if I don't use your scientific methodology of "it's true because it's true."

 

MR SAM ( Mt Ref's Science Aversion Method)

The article doesn't state anything about blacks being targeted or not targeted. All it states is there hasn't been an increase in shootings of blacks by police from shortly before the Michael Brown shooting and last year.

 

Doesnt say say anything about not targeting blacks, it just says there hasn't been an increase in that time frame.