The Police Officer's Dilemma

[doubtingt]

Gee, more gross misrepresentations of the facts by ksen. Who'da thunk?

The actual results show that cops rarely shoot the unarmed targets and are slightly less likely to shoot black targets. They are quicker and far more accurate in their decisions to shoot than non-cops, and the tiny 10 millisecond difference in the decision times (1/60th of the total decision time) between black and white targets is a smaller gap than for non-cops, and the same difference exists when the shooter is a black cop.

Note that the decisions are being made within about 1/2 of a second of seeing the target for the first time, which is about 100 times less than the time cops typically have in assessing the actual threat of a situation. Thus, these simulations overly inflate the impact of any unconscious biases, and yet still find zero racial bias (or a slight anti-white bias) in who cops shoot.

How sad, another blind faith destroyed by the cold hard facts of science.

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?

It isn't a conspiracy by the media. It is an effort by ksen to misrepresent the facts in support of his faith. In addition, conspiracy theories can be and often are valid and supported theories, whereas your argument that any theory is invalid if it sounds like a conspiracy theory is an always invalid logical fallacy.

The links do not support ksens assertions, they refute them. So no one needs to be misrepresenting the facts other than ksen in order for his OP to be false.

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

People perceive what they expect to see. This matters more than anything else.


If a policeman, or anyone elses, expects to confront a person with a gun, they will be ready to fire their own gun.

As Loren said,

You're either going to take longer to decide (and the game has a timer) or you're going to make more errors.

This means, eliminating the threat is more important than verifying the threat, a mindset which means someone is going to be shot.

 

[doubtingt]

If a policeman, or anyone elses, expects to confront a person with a gun, they will be ready to fire their own gun.

This means, eliminating the threat is more important than verifying the threat, a mindset which means someone is going to be shot.

Except the research shows this is false. The cops expect that many of the targets will have guns and that those targets could arise any moment, and every new target could be one with a gun. Yet, they rarely shoot the person without a gun, and overall have a higher threshold for shooting a target than do non-cops.
IOW, cops are more careful, less trigger happy, and less racially biased than non-cops and showed no racial bias in who they actually shot, despite not being given time more typical of real situations in order to process actual threat-relevant info more thoroughly.

The study really couldn't be more damning and refuting of the rampant ideology that cops are trigger happy bigots ready to fire when they see the black of their skin.

 

[Bronzeage]

If a policeman, or anyone elses, expects to confront a person with a gun, they will be ready to fire their own gun.

This means, eliminating the threat is more important than verifying the threat, a mindset which means someone is going to be shot.

Except the research shows this is false. The cops expect that many of the targets will have guns and that those targets could arise any moment, and every new target could be one with a gun. Yet, they rarely shoot the person without a gun, and overall have a higher threshold for shooting a target than do non-cops.
IOW, cops are more careful, less trigger happy, and less racially biased than non-cops and showed no racial bias in who they actually shot, despite not being given time more typical of real situations in order to process actual threat-relevant info more thoroughly.

The study really couldn't be more damning and refuting of the rampant ideology that cops are trigger happy bigots ready to fire when they see the black of their skin.

I suppose it is difficult to statistically count people who were not shot, which would be the only way to confirm this.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

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

I think it probably is although not quickly and not everywhere. America is becoming browner and, although there will def be some lag time, overall the fact that we are even aware that this is a clear case of systemic racism is evidence that the tide is turning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGMSfiH850o

 

[Togo]

The actual results show that cops rarely shoot the unarmed targets and are slightly less likely to shoot black targets.

Sorry, by the 'actual results' you're referring to the Phd student's pilot study from the university of washington, rather than the three experiments cited by ksen?

How sad, another blind faith destroyed by the cold hard facts of science.

Well apparently not, since you've chosen a study that supports your view and rejected all the contrary studies. That's pseudoscience.

It is an effort by ksen to misrepresent the facts in support of his faith.

Which facts have been misrepresented?

n addition, conspiracy theories can be and often are valid and supported theories

Hm... yeah, not touching that one.

 

[Underseer]

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.

Ah, so if we use the politically-incorrect term "conspiracy" instead of "narrative" or "agenda," then we are not being Fair And Balanced^TM. Got it.

 

[EricK]

"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.

Ah, so if we use the politically-incorrect term "conspiracy" instead of "narrative" or "agenda," then we are not being Fair And Balanced^TM. Got it.

You clearly haven't got it at all. If you are going to talk about a conspiracy, talk about the one which is actually happening, rather than some strawman one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

I'm talking about the images presented on that website, not the world of all possible cases. I've played that game before, again and again with sufficiently dark-skinned people there's the is-that-the-little-black-gun issue. Since there's a timer a failure to make the right choice in time ends up making a wrong choice--of course you have a higher error rate with blacks.

I e-mailed the author before, he even realizes the problem but figured it wasn't an issue because those were the images used in the study which were supposedly fair.

In reality this is just another example of rigged "research" that tries to show a problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

I'm not looking at the paper, I'm looking at the simulation that was put on the web. (I don't know if it's still up or not.) I didn't attempt to identify the weapons used, I just saw a big issue with contrast--there was a small black gun that was often hard to see the outlines of when held by a sufficiently dark-skinned person.

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

I'm talking about the images presented on that website, not the world of all possible cases. I've played that game before, again and again with sufficiently dark-skinned people there's the is-that-the-little-black-gun issue. Since there's a timer a failure to make the right choice in time ends up making a wrong choice--of course you have a higher error rate with blacks.

I e-mailed the author before, he even realizes the problem but figured it wasn't an issue because those were the images used in the study which were supposedly fair.

In reality this is just another example of rigged "research" that tries to show a problem.

Are you saying this doesn't reflect reality?

 

[KeepTalking]

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?

I'm not looking at the paper, I'm looking at the simulation that was put on the web. (I don't know if it's still up or not.) I didn't attempt to identify the weapons used, I just saw a big issue with contrast--there was a small black gun that was often hard to see the outlines of when held by a sufficiently dark-skinned person.

I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to, but I did see some black and white images that were from the simulation at one of the links. If you only judge by those images, I could see how you could easily come to the conclusion you have. The caption below the images, however, noted that in the simulation the images were actually in color.

 

[Togo]

The second link shows the images. They include a silver gun in a white person's hand while they're standing in direct sunlight (picture on the far left) and dark objects held in darker conditions by dark-skinned people, on of which is a gun (picture on the near left, picture on the right)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm talking about the images presented on that website, not the world of all possible cases. I've played that game before, again and again with sufficiently dark-skinned people there's the is-that-the-little-black-gun issue. Since there's a timer a failure to make the right choice in time ends up making a wrong choice--of course you have a higher error rate with blacks.

I e-mailed the author before, he even realizes the problem but figured it wasn't an issue because those were the images used in the study which were supposedly fair.

In reality this is just another example of rigged "research" that tries to show a problem.

Are you saying this doesn't reflect reality?

It could reflect reality but it doesn't prove racism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The second link shows the images. They include a silver gun in a white person's hand while they're standing in direct sunlight (picture on the far left) and dark objects held in darker conditions by dark-skinned people, on of which is a gun (picture on the near left, picture on the right)

And this has a different version of the on-line test. I don't know if it has an issue with my machine or what but I found it impossible, the time ran out every time.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Are you saying this doesn't reflect reality?

It could reflect reality but it doesn't prove racism.

only the shadow can prove racism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It could reflect reality but it doesn't prove racism.

only the shadow can prove racism.

If you're going to prove something you need to show that the results are not just measurement error or an artifact of the data unrelated to what you are trying to show.

In this case we have a test that can't distinguish between two cases:

1) Racism.

2) The fact that the human eye is better at identifying objects when there is more contrast.

Until you address #2 (which is going to be hard, guns that are near flesh colored would help but even that doesn't overcome the whole issue) you can't conclude #1.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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

Because it isn't a problem FOR THE POLICE. It's a problem for the people who get shot and killed unnecessarily by jittery cops with itchy trigger fingers (e.g. the rest of us). Since WE'RE the ones with the problem, WE'RE the ones who have to do something different.

How many times have we heard it said that the first priority of a police officer is to make sure he comes home safe at the end of the day?
I happen to agree with that sentiment. And the one surefire way to make absolutely sure you go home safely every night: don't be a cop.