Law Enforcment

[Undertoad]

Here's the Economist on it. It's in this week's edition so, tw, perhaps it is in the mail.

http://www.economist.com/news/united...es?frsc=dg%7Cd

Black Harvard prof (who is not Dr. Gates) studies the problem in depth in Houston. First, he removes his own bias:

AS A teenager, Roland Fryer had “unpleasant” run-ins with police. Officers pointed guns at him six or seven times. Even now, the youngest African-American to get tenure at Harvard wonders why police shout loudly at him as soon as he forgets to indicate when driving. But when the economist began researching racial differences in the use of force by police officers, he did not want his own experience to prejudice his findings. To understand how cops work he joined them on the beat in New Jersey and Texas.

Impressive! Key bits:

Based on the raw data, blacks and Hispanics were more than 50% more likely to encounter police force than whites...

...Blacks were 17.3% more likely to incur use of force after controlling for the characteristics of the civilian (such as age) and the encounter (such as if they ran away, complained or hit an officer)...

...blacks who were reported by cops as being perfectly compliant with police instructions during their interactions were still 21.1% more likely than whites to have some force used against them...

BUT THEN when it came to use of deadly force:

What shocked Mr Fryer was when he looked in detail at reports of police shootings. He got two separate research teams to read, code and analyse over 1,300 shootings between 2000 and 2015 in ten police departments, including Houston and Los Angeles. To his surprise, he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks. This was apparent both in the raw data, and once the characteristics of the suspect and the context of the encounter were accounted for.

Mr Fryer dug deeper into the data. He combed through 6,000 incident reports from Houston, including all the shootings, incidents involving Tasers and a sample in which lethal force could have justifiably been used but was not. What he found was even more startling: black suspects appear less likely to be shot than non-black ones, fatally or otherwise.

So, Houston via the Economist, same as the WaPo: Blacks more likely to have to deal with police, more likely to have bad dealings... and less likely to be shot at.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Blacks more likely to have to deal with police, more likely to have bad dealings... and less likely to be shot at.

Good summary.

Maybe the Black Lives Matter movement has such wide support because blacks have experienced that non-lethal bias and when they see the lethal bias on tv or youtube, it resonates with them. It fits with their experiences.

Maybe we need to try to eliminate that non-lethal racial bias.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Here's the Economist on it. It's in this week's edition so, tw, perhaps it is in the mail.

Read that article long before posting. It was part of that earlier response. Interesting especially when combined with other researchers and reporters.

Black and whites were just as likely to be shot ... when they attacked police. That is secondary. Problem occurs when blacks, et al do not attack police. For example, the kid who is waving around a toy gun. Or the man who does not resist until after being arrested. These were conditions that create controversy. These events are separate from others where the victim first attacked police.

Prof Gate did not attack police. But he suffered an 'excessive' police response only because he was trying to break into his own house. And even after properly identifying himself. We are only seeing more example of this 2009 example maybe because we are finally looking for it. Or because cameras now recored what has long been acceptable behavior among a minority.

Another reporter also spent (if I remember) most of a year riding with police in Newark. One fact remained apparent after enough observation. A major distrust exists between these police and citizens. Eventually he noticed a pattern. Police were always 'challenging' everyone. Constantly demanding an answer to "Why did you run?". Or "Come here." There was no cooperative interplay between these cops and citizens. The underlying bias of these cops was a constant "Everyone is a suspect."

Critical to cooperation between cops and citizens is the interplay where a cop and citizen can talk like friends. That program was instituted with success in Philadelphia. Among these Newark cops, everyone was distrusted. And so citizens routinely distrusted the cops. This was even observed with young kids. This would explain why some cops were more prone to use unnecessary violence and why emotions cause so much confrontation - both by police and citizens.

A man with a gun is always quick to make decisions based upon his biases - his emotions. That is why the NRA has been so quiet about tihis. That is why we want people with guns (more power) to be extra trained - to learn how to control those inevitable emotions. Still, some cops do not get it. We see that in recent videos including a lady cop in UT's Hummelstown PA video.

Some cops resort to excessive violence when not attacked. That is irrelevant to the other situation (described in the Economist) where a cop is attacked. Complaint is that some cops tend to be more (excessively) violent with a people who have a unique external characteristic when the citizen is not even violent.

The topic is not citizens who attack police. The topic is citizens who do nothing or only complain - and suffer an excessive police response. We know that is happening - apparently with a minority of officers whose training did not suppress their bias (emotions). And we know many who have these biases may even be unaware of their biases.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Black and whites were just as likely to be shot ... when they attacked police. That is secondary. Problem occurs when blacks, et al do not attack police.

Maybe read the article again

...he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks.

[tw]

Originally Posted by by Undertoad

...he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks.

Completely unrelated are people who *never* attack an officer. Major difference.

Move on to why this apparently exists. Many want to cast blame. Only fewer are proposing solutions based in identifying potential reasons for a problem. Some cops are professionally trained or acting as if everyone is a suspect. As a result, everyone is potential perp - not a friendly citizen. That attitude results in citizens treating cops as adversaries - to act as if a copy is a threat - not as friends or protectors. An attitude of both cop and citizen that caused violent confrontations when a citizen NEVER attacks a cop.

Not 'before' - never. A major difference exists in those two scenarios.

We are not discussing what a majority of cops do - ie less likely to shoot someone. A problem apparently lies with a minority who are likely to be violent when not even attacked. Their emotions perceive a threat that did not exist. Ie and again - your Hummelstown PA video. Where is an attack that justified a shooting? Before or Never?

Please do not combine what are two completely different scenarios. What a majority of cops do is apparently unrelated to what a minority of cops do - too often.