Lucylastic
Posts: 40310
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote:
ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44 haven't read the study, and the nytimes is not going to report the methodology or all of the literature review and discussion, but that notion that "white cops treat black people more roughly" might be answered by the fact that blacks are more disproportionately criminals compared to whites. also, given the race relations these days, they very well might be reacting to white policemen in ways that invoke that roughness. The NYT article goes into some detail regarding the methodology, and the study's origins. It's an interesting read. One conspicuously absent statistic, and there's reason to believe that the data is available to them, is the classing of interactions in cases where arrests actually occurred. does the ny times piece give the title of the article and the journal its in? yes it does Do you have an allergy that stops you reading it for yourself, or are you waiting for townhall/fox/ breitbart,/ newsmax? to give you your talking points but just so you dont have to tax your poor old brain. An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force Roland G. Fryer, Jr National Bureau of Economic Research, which states 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. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399 you can actually download it. But you would have known that if you had actually read the link given. BTW before you get too disheartened, the link AND the paper make clear that more study is needed and that its not fully accurate. Maybe we should let the CDC do their thing and have accurate studies done as it IS a public health issue. Or people like you can follow the words of tthe rudyG and keep denying the facts. edited to fix format...I hope
< Message edited by Lucylastic -- 7/12/2016 7:14:13 PM >
_____________________________
(•_•) <) )╯SUCH / \ \(•_•) ( (> A NASTY / \ (•_•) <) )> WOMAN / \ Duchess Of Dissent Dont Hate Love
|