https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCQFH5wOJo 5 mins long, Heather Macdonald, for the feminists.
Dont let the facts get into the way of your victim mentallity.
I wont be returning to this post or any other to read the comments. That would be a waste of time.
Are police racist?
-
tripullcrown
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:02 pm
Re: Are police racist?
HAHAHAH this is getn better by the day..IS THERE A FUCKING MORON IN AMERICA THAT REALLY BELIEVES THIS! I FEEL SORRY FOR THE IDIOT THAT BELIEVES THIS????THIS MUST BE A JOKE or helps relieve a lost idiot to sleep better at night...NEWS FLASH ..STOP SMOKING CRACK AUTHOR..
Re: Are police racist?
A little clarification, Bezerk, in case you do decide to come back.
In the video, the woman says: "Harvard Economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1000 officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings."
I went to the website of this professor and browsed through his publications. Since the video doesn't cite the actual study, I looked through every paper abstract until I found the one she was referring to. The abstract of the paper reads:
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.
Since non-lethal uses of force are way more abundant than lethal uses of force, the results of this study pretty much show that police are in fact racist most of the times violence is employed, and when they are not, it is because the costs of racial discrimination exceeds its utilities (that's what I think the author means when he calls the cops "utility maximizers", a little context on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory). If anyone reads the full paper, towards the end, the author gets a little critical of the black lives matter movement. It seems to me he does not do so because he thinks their cause is wrong, but because he thinks it is more practical to focus on black dignity than black lives as there are higher chances to implement cultural changes (which would also be statistically more relevant) in police behavior at the level of non-lethal violence.
As for the rest of the video, they don't bother to name sources which makes all the data practically irrelevant. In any case, seeing how one of the two papers that they do cite is taken out of context, it would not be surprising if the other ones they use (if they do exist) had been taken out of context too.
This is the link to the paper: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer ... y_2016.pdf
In the video, the woman says: "Harvard Economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1000 officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings."
I went to the website of this professor and browsed through his publications. Since the video doesn't cite the actual study, I looked through every paper abstract until I found the one she was referring to. The abstract of the paper reads:
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.
Since non-lethal uses of force are way more abundant than lethal uses of force, the results of this study pretty much show that police are in fact racist most of the times violence is employed, and when they are not, it is because the costs of racial discrimination exceeds its utilities (that's what I think the author means when he calls the cops "utility maximizers", a little context on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory). If anyone reads the full paper, towards the end, the author gets a little critical of the black lives matter movement. It seems to me he does not do so because he thinks their cause is wrong, but because he thinks it is more practical to focus on black dignity than black lives as there are higher chances to implement cultural changes (which would also be statistically more relevant) in police behavior at the level of non-lethal violence.
As for the rest of the video, they don't bother to name sources which makes all the data practically irrelevant. In any case, seeing how one of the two papers that they do cite is taken out of context, it would not be surprising if the other ones they use (if they do exist) had been taken out of context too.
This is the link to the paper: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer ... y_2016.pdf
