Some interesting data on police shootings

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2015_johnson_useofforce/

They came at it from a different direction--comparing police shootings to deadly force (blades, guns) attacks on police.

Oops--now the supposed idea of police wantonly shooting blacks goes away, the numbers are strongly in the other direction.

(Note, however, that there is one hole in the data--the FBI data they are working from doesn't count car attacks on police.)

 

[Trausti]

Some other interesting data.

Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings

There is widespread concern about racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings and that these disparities reflect discrimination by White officers. Existing databases of fatal shootings lack information about officers, and past analytic approaches have made it difficult to assess the contributions of factors like crime. We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.

 

[Politesse]

A company whose entire purpose is to defend police officers against legal challenges studied the issue and found that there aren't, in their opinion, too many police shootings. Shocking, really.

Is there any point in deconstructing the flawed argument in this article? The fact that almost none of the statistics they are comparing are, in fact, comparable? That even a working police officer would surely oppose the article's contention that being confronted with a deadly weapon automatically justifies a deadly response? That the causes and geographic centers of violent crimes are, as usual, being ignored in their "study"? I assume none of this will change anyone's mind, but we can go through it if you like.

 

[Metaphor]

A company whose entire purpose is to defend police officers against legal challenges studied the issue and found that there aren't too many police shootings. Shocking, really.

Do you actually have any comment on what you perceive as flaws in their methodology that would lead to flaws in their conclusion?

 

[Politesse]

A company whose entire purpose is to defend police officers against legal challenges studied the issue and found that there aren't too many police shootings. Shocking, really.

Do you actually have any comment on what you perceive as flaws in their methodology that would lead to flaws in their conclusion?

See above. The whole thing is ridiculous, if you want me to take it seriously as a social science study rather than an all-too-familiar rhetorical appeal.

 

[Metaphor]

A company whose entire purpose is to defend police officers against legal challenges studied the issue and found that there aren't too many police shootings. Shocking, really.

Do you actually have any comment on what you perceive as flaws in their methodology that would lead to flaws in their conclusion?

See above. The whole thing is ridiculous, if you want me to take it seriously as a social science study rather than an all-too-familiar rhetorical appeal.

Well, before you edited that response, you were willing to dismiss the conclusion because of the people who did the study. That isn't a good reason to dismiss a conclusion.

 

[Politesse]

See above. The whole thing is ridiculous, if you want me to take it seriously as a social science study rather than an all-too-familiar rhetorical appeal.

Well, before you edited that response, you were willing to dismiss the conclusion because of the people who did the study. That isn't a good reason to dismiss a conclusion.

Sure it is, if they don't responsibly disclose their obvious reason for bias. Certainly, a reason to be skeptical.

The data, of course, does not speak for itself, so what's to comment on? Their essential claim is that there isn't "too much" death, an inherently subjective determination, and they are not a neutral party, so... what would you expect them to find? If they ran the numbers a different way and realized police shootings were actually quite high even by their own subjective standards, they wouldn't publish those results, it would be obviously contrary to their business interests.Who's going to hire a bunch of lawyers to defend them against police brutality when their website seems to argue that it is a major problem? Indeed, they probably did play around with the statistics quite a bit before reaching the conclusion they were after.

 

[Metaphor]

See above. The whole thing is ridiculous, if you want me to take it seriously as a social science study rather than an all-too-familiar rhetorical appeal.

Well, before you edited that response, you were willing to dismiss the conclusion because of the people who did the study. That isn't a good reason to dismiss a conclusion.

Sure it is, if they don't responsibly disclose their obvious reason for bias. Certainly, a reason to be skeptical.

The data, of course, does not speak for itself, so what's to comment on? Their essential claim is that there isn't "too much" death, an inherently subjective determination, and they are not a neutral party, so... what would you expect them to find? If they ran the numbers a different way and realized police shootings were actually quite high even by their own subjective standards, they wouldn't publish those results, it would be obviously contrary to their business interests.Who's going to hire a bunch of lawyers to defend them against police brutality when their website seems to argue that it is a major problem? Indeed, they probably did play around with the statistics quite a bit before reaching the conclusion they were after.

And what results has Black Lives Matters published to indicate that black people are disproportionately targeted by police violence? Why is the default to believe BLM claims?

 

[Politesse]

Sure it is, if they don't responsibly disclose their obvious reason for bias. Certainly, a reason to be skeptical.

The data, of course, does not speak for itself, so what's to comment on? Their essential claim is that there isn't "too much" death, an inherently subjective determination, and they are not a neutral party, so... what would you expect them to find? If they ran the numbers a different way and realized police shootings were actually quite high even by their own subjective standards, they wouldn't publish those results, it would be obviously contrary to their business interests.Who's going to hire a bunch of lawyers to defend them against police brutality when their website seems to argue that it is a major problem? Indeed, they probably did play around with the statistics quite a bit before reaching the conclusion they were after.

And what results has Black Lives Matters published to indicate that black people are disproportionately targeted by police violence? Why is the default to believe BLM claims?

??

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything one way or the other about Black Lives Matter.

I would be similarly surprised if that organization published a study universally exonerating police officers.

 

[Metaphor]

Sure it is, if they don't responsibly disclose their obvious reason for bias. Certainly, a reason to be skeptical.

The data, of course, does not speak for itself, so what's to comment on? Their essential claim is that there isn't "too much" death, an inherently subjective determination, and they are not a neutral party, so... what would you expect them to find? If they ran the numbers a different way and realized police shootings were actually quite high even by their own subjective standards, they wouldn't publish those results, it would be obviously contrary to their business interests.Who's going to hire a bunch of lawyers to defend them against police brutality when their website seems to argue that it is a major problem? Indeed, they probably did play around with the statistics quite a bit before reaching the conclusion they were after.

And what results has Black Lives Matters published to indicate that black people are disproportionately targeted by police violence? Why is the default to believe BLM claims?

??

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything one way or the other about Black Lives Matter.

I would be similarly surprised if that organization published a study universally exonerating police officers.

Loren's OP presented the results as a challenge to the idea that black people are shot or killed disproportionately by American police.

Now, if you are saying you don't believe that, then no study is needed to dispel something you don't believe.

 

[Politesse]

??

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything one way or the other about Black Lives Matter.

I would be similarly surprised if that organization published a study universally exonerating police officers.

Loren's OP presented the results as a challenge to the idea that black people are shot or killed disproportionately by American police.

Now, if you are saying you don't believe that, then no study is needed to dispel something you don't believe.

So you admit that this isn't a "study", but rather an attempt to make a political argument with statistics? If it were a legitimate study, there would be plenty of good reasons to read it whether or not it conformed to your political opinions.

 

[Metaphor]

So you admit that this isn't a "study", but rather an attempt to make a political argument with statistics? If it were a legitimate study, there would be plenty of good reasons to read it whether or not it conformed to your political opinions.

What? In what way isn't it a study? It was research done with the aim of answering the posed question.

 

[Politesse]

So you admit that this isn't a "study", but rather an attempt to make a political argument with statistics? If it were a legitimate study, there would be plenty of good reasons to read it whether or not it conformed to your political opinions.

What? In what way isn't it a study? It was research done with the aim of answering the posed question.

No, it was collection of information done with the aim of providing a particular answer to a posed question. Not the same thing.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it was collection of information done with the aim of providing a particular answer to a posed question.

Then that would be true of all research on social issues everywhere.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It's... an interesting document? If the claim they were refuting was "Activists and media outlets have suggested a national epidemic of deaths from police use of force currently exists, with thousands of citizens being killed annually by the police," they could have begun and ended with the actual number of fatalities and skipped the rest.

576,925 reported felonious assaults against police officers. Of these assaults on officers, 191,225 (33.1%) involved some sort of weapon, such as a gun, knife, club, vehicle, baseball bat, table leg, beer bottle, hammer, etc. Of the assaults with a weapon, 32,767 involved an edged weapon or a firearm, for an average of 3,277 deadly weapon assaults on officers annually. We could use this figure (3,277) as a conservative estimate of the number of justified deadly force incidents we could expect each year from law enforcement officers.

What is the scope of activity which falls under felony assault on an officer which involved an edged weapon or a firearm?

According to these same reports from 2003-2012, of those assailants who murdered police officers, 44.3% were African-American males in spite of the fact African-American males make up only 6% of the U.S. population. Assuming that attacks by African-American males are no more or less lethal than attacks by persons of other races and sexes, we can assume that 44.3% of all knife and gun assaults on officers are committed by black males. This would mean we should anticipate about 1,452 legally justified lethal force incidents against African-American men each year.

For better or worse, is that a reasonable assumption? I don't think it is implausible, but I'd be loath to use that estimate for anything.

• 575 people die annually from firearms accidents
• 2,603 persons die annually from medical errors during surgery
• 16,491 persons are murdered annually
• 35,817 die in motor vehicle accidents annually
• 38,863 die from suicide annually

It is clear that people are far more likely to die at the hands of a criminal, an inattentive driver, their doctor, or themselves than they are to be killed by use of force from a law enforcement officer. In fact, according to the National Weather Service, an average of 363 persons are hit by lightning annually in the U.S., revealing that one’s likelihood of being killed by a law enforcement officer is almost as rare as being struck by lightning.​

This is a bizarre contextualization. It's difficult to compare the number of deaths from those things to give a sense of how risky interactions with the police are. On a daily basis, millions of people are operating vehicles or near operating vehicles. Far fewer are interacting with the police in any way. Conversely, more people are likely exposed to law enforcement than lightning. I might even go so far as to say lightning is more dangerous than police officers in a direct encounter.


​

 

[Politesse]

No, it was collection of information done with the aim of providing a particular answer to a posed question.

Then that would be true of all research on social issues everywhere.

Dear god, no. Is that really the state of science education these days?

 

[Metaphor]

No, it was collection of information done with the aim of providing a particular answer to a posed question.

Then that would be true of all research on social issues everywhere.

Dear god, no. Is that really the state of science education these days?

You are suggesting that the researchers aimed to provide a particular answer. What researchers into social issues do you think don't expect a particular answer to their questions? Do you think researchers are free from their own expectations?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Dear god, no. Is that really the state of science education these days?

You are suggesting that the researchers aimed to provide a particular answer. What researchers into social issues do you think don't expect a particular answer to their questions? Do you think researchers are free from their own expectations?

That wording ends up ambiguous making it unclear if you are talking about the same thing as Politesse.

It seems the distinction being made is whether researchers are asking:
A: Here is the data we have gathered: what conclusions follow?
B: Here is the conclusion we need to reach: what evidence can we select to support that?

A doesn't preclude expecting a certain answer, but it certainly isn't the same as B.

 

[Metaphor]

Dear god, no. Is that really the state of science education these days?

You are suggesting that the researchers aimed to provide a particular answer. What researchers into social issues do you think don't expect a particular answer to their questions? Do you think researchers are free from their own expectations?

That wording ends up ambiguous making it unclear if you are talking about the same thing as Politesse.

It seems the distinction being made is whether researchers are asking:
A: Here is the data we have gathered: what conclusions follow?
B: Here is the conclusion we need to reach: what evidence can we select to support that?

A doesn't preclude expecting a certain answer, but it certainly isn't the same as B.

Well, A and B are not the same, I agree, but how has Politesse concluded that this study was B, and not A, and what criterion does she use in general to distinguish between A vs B?

I'm not even suggesting it isn't B, I just want to know why Politesse is certain it is, beyond her own intuition.

 

[Politesse]

That wording ends up ambiguous making it unclear if you are talking about the same thing as Politesse.

It seems the distinction being made is whether researchers are asking:
A: Here is the data we have gathered: what conclusions follow?
B: Here is the conclusion we need to reach: what evidence can we select to support that?

A doesn't preclude expecting a certain answer, but it certainly isn't the same as B.

Well, A and B are not the same, I agree, but how has Politesse concluded that this study was B, and not A, and what criterion does she use in general to distinguish between A vs B?

I'm not even suggesting it isn't B, I just want to know why Politesse is certain it is, beyond her own intuition.

Well, for one thing it's obvious that the numbers are cherry-picked to fit their agenda. For another, if they were employing a scientific methodology, they would have started by describing that methodology.