The Police Officer's Dilemma

[ksen]

http://fairandimpartialpolicing.com/docs/pob2.pdf

http://psych.colorado.edu/~jclab/FPST.html

The gist of the research is that police officer's are quicker to shoot an armed black person than an armed white person and also decide not to shoot an unarmed white person faster than they decide not to shoot an unarmed black person.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There's nothing there that can't be changed with proper training and enforcement.

 

[ksen]

If that's all it takes then the next question is: why isn't it being done?

 

[Togo]

I think part of the answer is that police forces are extremely reluctant to admit there is a problem. This could come from a mixture of motives, from a reluctance to attract the negative publicity that the necessary training would attract, to the possession of attitudes towards certain racial groups that might have caused them to shoot them in the first place, to a tendency to see the worst side of all ethnic groups, but the positive side only of those to which they belong or regularly socialise with.

One of my favourite studies was commissioned by the Met in London, as part of a comparison between them and the LAPD. They wanted to know what steps they could take to improve public confidence in the police force. For those not familiar with this area, 'increase public confidence' is code for 'why do people hate us, not trust or call us, and refuse to answer questions about crime?' The answer came back that, in both LA and in London, public perceptions of the police were statistically more accurate than police perceptions of the police, and that the quickest and fastest way to improve public confidence in the police force was take the publics concerns as fact and work towards addressing them. The authors of the study were not contacted for further work, and the study was never published.

It should be possible in theory to bring US police forces up to UK standards. The problem is, it would cost a fair bit in training. Who's going to argue that racism is a reason to increase the police budget?

 

[coloradoatheist]

If that's all it takes then the next question is: why isn't it being done?

The study in the first link only used undergraduate students in a game, not cops. Here is a study that looked at cops in Washington and found the opposite.

http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7653755-Cops-hesitate-more-err-less-when-shooting-black-suspects-study-finds/

 

[Trausti]

If that's all it takes then the next question is: why isn't it being done?

The study in the first link only used undergraduate students in a game, not cops. Here is a study that looked at cops in Washington and found the opposite.

http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7653755-Cops-hesitate-more-err-less-when-shooting-black-suspects-study-finds/

Now, now, that doesn't fit the narrative. Hide it away.

 

[Underseer]

The study in the first link only used undergraduate students in a game, not cops. Here is a study that looked at cops in Washington and found the opposite.

http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7653755-Cops-hesitate-more-err-less-when-shooting-black-suspects-study-finds/

Now, now, that doesn't fit the narrative. Hide it away.

Fit the narrative?

Ah, so this is just a conspiracy by the media. It's part of their conspiracy against white people, right? I mean, when the "liberal media" conspiracy makes a big deal about missing white women but don't seem to give a shit about missing African-Americans, that is obviously part of their conspiracy against white people. When the "liberal media" conspiracy creates in the public the impression of rampant crime among inner city African-American poor people at precisely the time when crime rates in that community are plummeting, this is all part of their dastardly conspiracy against white people, right?

Come on. If you're going to try and explain things with a conspiracy theory, couldn't you at least have come up with a conspiracy that is more believable?

 

[Bronzeage]

If that's all it takes then the next question is: why isn't it being done?

Because it isn't seen as a problem.

 

[EricK]

Now, now, that doesn't fit the narrative. Hide it away.

Fit the narrative?

Ah, so this is just a conspiracy by the media. It's part of their conspiracy against white people, right? I mean, when the "liberal media" conspiracy makes a big deal about missing white women but don't seem to give a shit about missing African-Americans, that is obviously part of their conspiracy against white people. When the "liberal media" conspiracy creates in the public the impression of rampant crime among inner city African-American poor people at precisely the time when crime rates in that community are plummeting, this is all part of their dastardly conspiracy against white people, right?

Come on. If you're going to try and explain things with a conspiracy theory, couldn't you at least have come up with a conspiracy that is more believable?

"The narrative" portrayed by the newspapers is whatever sells newspapers. If more newspapers are sold if racism is made out to be a large problem, then newspapers will accentuate the racial angle of every story - both those which genuinely have a racial aspect and those which don't. If more newspapers are sold when the story is about a missing white woman than a missing black woman, then newspapers will report on the former rather than the latter. If more newspapers are sold if a scientific result is misreported, or reported in a more alarmist manner than is justified, than that is what will happen.

The "conspiracy" is against a balanced reporting of the truth.

 

[Bronzeage]

Now, now, that doesn't fit the narrative. Hide it away.

Fit the narrative?

Ah, so this is just a conspiracy by the media. It's part of their conspiracy against white people, right? I mean, when the "liberal media" conspiracy makes a big deal about missing white women but don't seem to give a shit about missing African-Americans, that is obviously part of their conspiracy against white people. When the "liberal media" conspiracy creates in the public the impression of rampant crime among inner city African-American poor people at precisely the time when crime rates in that community are plummeting, this is all part of their dastardly conspiracy against white people, right?

Come on. If you're going to try and explain things with a conspiracy theory, couldn't you at least have come up with a conspiracy that is more believable?

If a conspiracy theory were believable, it would be called "what really happened," not a conspiracy theory. The main element of any good conspiracy theory is it must be based on a evidence which can't be produced because someone is keeping it secret.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If that's all it takes then the next question is: why isn't it being done?

It is being addressed in communities and on police forces where the problem has gotten people killed.

And it isn't only a black white thing. It's the way officers are trained generally and how they are perceived within the communities they ostensibly protect, as has been mentioned.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://fairandimpartialpolicing.com/docs/pob2.pdf

http://psych.colorado.edu/~jclab/FPST.html

The gist of the research is that police officer's are quicker to shoot an armed black person than an armed white person and also decide not to shoot an unarmed white person faster than they decide not to shoot an unarmed black person.

I see this piece of crap has returned.

All that "test" really shows is that under poor light it's harder to identify a dark colored object in the hands of a black than of a white. It's a matter of contrast.

Repeat the test with a bunch of pink objects and you'll get different results. (It will still be easier to identify the object in a white person's hands, though, it's just the difference won't be so great.)

 

[Nexus]

Fit the narrative?

Ah, so this is just a conspiracy by the media. It's part of their conspiracy against white people, right? I mean, when the "liberal media" conspiracy makes a big deal about missing white women but don't seem to give a shit about missing African-Americans, that is obviously part of their conspiracy against white people. When the "liberal media" conspiracy creates in the public the impression of rampant crime among inner city African-American poor people at precisely the time when crime rates in that community are plummeting, this is all part of their dastardly conspiracy against white people, right?

Come on. If you're going to try and explain things with a conspiracy theory, couldn't you at least have come up with a conspiracy that is more believable?

If a conspiracy theory were believable, it would be called "what really happened," not a conspiracy theory. The main element of any good conspiracy theory is it must be based on a evidence which can't be produced because someone is keeping it secret.

A conspiracy is a plan by two or more people to harm others. There are laws against conspiring and people are convicted of conspiracies every day. We have clear definitions both legal and dictionary. A possible conspiracy is called a "conspiracy theory" when someone wants to dismiss a potential conspiracy by those with power.

 

[Bomb#20]

Now, now, that doesn't fit the narrative. Hide it away.

Fit the narrative?

Ah, so this is just a conspiracy by the media. It's part of their conspiracy against white people, right? I mean, when the "liberal media" blah blah blah
Come on. If you're going to try and explain things with a conspiracy theory, couldn't you at least have come up with a conspiracy that is more believable?

If a conspiracy theory were believable, it would be called "what really happened," not a conspiracy theory. The main element of any good conspiracy theory is it must be based on a evidence which can't be produced because someone is keeping it secret.

Oh for the love of god! "Narrative" does not equal "conspiracy". It doesn't require anyone to conspire with anyone else in order for a biased culture to believe in a biased narrative and for that to be reflected in their biased reporting. Get a grip.

 

[Togo]

Both sets of studies seem broadly consistent. They show that (white) officers take longer to process whether a black person is a threat than a white person. This suggests that it is harder for them to do, and fits in well with other studies of social interaction across race. It also rather neatly backs up the idea, suggested through various public statements by US police, that a decision to shoot will often be based on body language.

It's entirely reasonable that this delay would show up as a increased error rate in one study, and a decreased error rate in another. The obvious differences to look for would be the briefing and conditions given to each subject, and their priorities and attitude towards the task.

The primary difference between the findings is that in the first study, the processing time was shown to vary depending on armament and race - so black armed people were processed faster than black unarmed, but white unarmed were processed faster than white armed. This suggests a predisposition to regard blacks as armed. In the second study the finding was that officers were more likely to hesitate, and less likely to decide to shoot blacks in error, which suggests that the delay in processing caused them to reconsider what would otherwise be serious mistakes.

So imagine a population of officers, all of whom find it harder to work out whether black people are armed and what they're going to do. For those who are taking the task very seriously and taking great care that would lower the error rate for blacks, while for those who are not primarily motivated by care in completing the task, the error rate might very well go up, due to the same effect.

The first study is designed around what is, in effect, a computer game. It is designed to be downloadable and playable in a variety of scenarios. The context encourages people to take the task casually, which would lead to error rates going up for more difficult tasks. The second study was done in a specialist training centre using quite complicated equipment. All the officers were from the same force which means, by hook or by crook, performance results are likely to become know either to other participants, or to the training centre, or to the force that sent them. So it's a lot more formal setting, and there's more pressure to get it right. The error rate might thus go down for the more difficult task. It seems logical that the same processing effect would have the opposite effect in the two settings.

What matters of course, is what effect it has on the streets. And there you're likely to see both effects. An officer in an observed situation under pressure to make the right decision will likely shoot fewer blacks than white. An officer in an unobserved situation under pressure to make a quick decision will likely shoot more blacks than whites. Since highly observed situations result in fewer deaths overall, and are rarely controversial, what we tend to see in controversial cases is police officers who are either bored/distracted or fearful shooting black people more often than they otherwise would.

 

[KeepTalking]

http://fairandimpartialpolicing.com/docs/pob2.pdf

http://psych.colorado.edu/~jclab/FPST.html

The gist of the research is that police officer's are quicker to shoot an armed black person than an armed white person and also decide not to shoot an unarmed white person faster than they decide not to shoot an unarmed black person.

I see this piece of crap has returned.

All that "test" really shows is that under poor light it's harder to identify a dark colored object in the hands of a black than of a white. It's a matter of contrast.

Repeat the test with a bunch of pink objects and you'll get different results. (It will still be easier to identify the object in a white person's hands, though, it's just the difference won't be so great.)

Oh, well that's great news then. The solution becomes so much simpler. All we need to do is mandate that only pink firearms can be manufactured and sold in the USA. Brilliant!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see this piece of crap has returned.

All that "test" really shows is that under poor light it's harder to identify a dark colored object in the hands of a black than of a white. It's a matter of contrast.

Repeat the test with a bunch of pink objects and you'll get different results. (It will still be easier to identify the object in a white person's hands, though, it's just the difference won't be so great.)

Oh, well that's great news then. The solution becomes so much simpler. All we need to do is mandate that only pink firearms can be manufactured and sold in the USA. Brilliant!

The point is that it's showing the reality of vision, not racism. There's a little black gun in that study that's very hard to distinguish in the hand of a sufficiently dark-skinned person. You're either going to take longer to decide (and the game has a timer) or you're going to make more errors.

There is no corresponding hard-to-identify threat in the hands of any of the white people.

 

[Bronzeage]

Oh, well that's great news then. The solution becomes so much simpler. All we need to do is mandate that only pink firearms can be manufactured and sold in the USA. Brilliant!

The point is that it's showing the reality of vision, not racism. There's a little black gun in that study that's very hard to distinguish in the hand of a sufficiently dark-skinned person. You're either going to take longer to decide (and the game has a timer) or you're going to make more errors.

There is no corresponding hard-to-identify threat in the hands of any of the white people.

Unless the white guy is wearing gloves, which evens the playing field, sort of.

Even in split second decisions, there is a decision making process. So, it must go something like this:

1. Can't tell if black person has gun because hands are same color as gun.
2. Shoot black person.

For this process to occur, there has to be an acceptance that guns are less visible in a black person's hand, as well as a black person is likely to have a gun, and likely to use it, but not include foregone conclusions about people of a certain race.

I am a little confused about why this is not about race. As I said above, white men can wear gloves. What if a white man has his hands in his jacket pockets. If uncertainty about whether a gun is present is the overriding factor, why is "there no corresponding hard-to-identify threat in the hands of any of the white people?" when it's very likely a white man can hold a hard to identify gun?

 

[Toni]

The point is that it's showing the reality of vision, not racism. There's a little black gun in that study that's very hard to distinguish in the hand of a sufficiently dark-skinned person. You're either going to take longer to decide (and the game has a timer) or you're going to make more errors.

There is no corresponding hard-to-identify threat in the hands of any of the white people.

Unless the white guy is wearing gloves, which evens the playing field, sort of.

Even in split second decisions, there is a decision making process. So, it must go something like this:

1. Can't tell if black person has gun because hands are same color as gun.
2. Shoot black person.

For this process to occur, there has to be an acceptance that guns are less visible in a black person's hand, as well as a black person is likely to have a gun, and likely to use it, but not include foregone conclusions about people of a certain race.

I am a little confused about why this is not about race. As I said above, white men can wear gloves. What if a white man has his hands in his jacket pockets. If uncertainty about whether a gun is present is the overriding factor, why is "there no corresponding hard-to-identify threat in the hands of any of the white people?" when it's very likely a white man can hold a hard to identify gun?

My guess is that more guns are owned by white people than by black or brown people in the U.S. By quite a lot.

 

[KeepTalking]

Oh, well that's great news then. The solution becomes so much simpler. All we need to do is mandate that only pink firearms can be manufactured and sold in the USA. Brilliant!

The point is that it's showing the reality of vision, not racism. There's a little black gun in that study that's very hard to distinguish in the hand of a sufficiently dark-skinned person. You're either going to take longer to decide (and the game has a timer) or you're going to make more errors.

There is no corresponding hard-to-identify threat in the hands of any of the white people.

I read through the paper, and I notice that there were actually two guns used in the simulation, a black 9mm, and a silver (I assume they mean nickel) snub nose .38. The 9mm would have a distinctly longer barrel, and should be fairly easily identified in either case. I would think the snub nose .38 would be harder to detect in either case, but even harder in the hands of a white man.

Selective reading much, Loren?