Are Minorities Treated More Violently by Police? Yes – and No.
I’m guessing everyone is familiar with the Black Lives Matter group – and their contention that African Americans (and, by implication, minorities in general) are currently being treated with disproportionate and unnecessary violence by law enforcement.
Years ago, in parts (maybe much) of the country that was indeed true. But the recent BLM allegations raise an interesting question: is it still true today?
The conventional “wisdom” is that it is – and the media has done far more than its share to reinforce that conventional wisdom. However, in reality it’s a surprisingly hard question to answer.
One can’t simply count arrests, or even incidents of police use of force – because in some cases police use of force is clearly warranted, and arrests (and crime) are decidedly not distributed uniformly, either geographically or among racial and ethnic groups. So determining whether one racial/ethnic group is being treated “better” or “worse” than another with respect to police violence is not an easy problem.
. . .
Indeed, one reason that the question hasn’t been studied is that meaningful data needed to study the problem wasn’t readily available.
That’s no longer the case. It seems as if one guy – a man named Roland G. Fryer, Jr. – decided to study the problem. He and a group of people working with and for him have conducted a survey of data from multiple representative jurisdictions and data sources to attempt to extract such meaningful data. They’ve also rigorously analyzed the extracted data. The project took an aggregate of 3,000+ staff-hours of work.
The conclusions of Fryer’s study are quite interesting. Per his study, it turns out that minorities are more likely to be on the receiving end of police violence. That is, they are . . . until they aren’t.
I’ll explain.
The study included data from three metro areas in Texas (Houston, Dallas, and Austin); six counties in Florida (Brevard, Jacksonville, Lee, Orange, Palm Beach and Pinellas – which include the St. Petersburg, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, and Orlando metro areas as well as a good portion of Florida’s east coast north of Miami); LA County in California; and NYC. Arrests reports and NYC “stop and frisk” data from a fifteen-year period (2000-2015) were studied; the relevant data was extracted and characterized. This extracted data was combined with public survey results concerning citizen perception of police use of violence. Control measures to remove bias due to officer race, gender, experience level, precinct, and location of crime were also developed.
After doing this, a rigorous statistical analysis of the resulting data set was conducted. It sought to determine whether minorities taken in to custody by LE were more or less likely to receive varying degrees of violent treatment. Violent treatment was defined as consisting of multiple escalating categories, beginning with being being pushed/shoved, and including being handcuffed, put forcibly on the ground, batoned, having a weapon drawn or pointed, being pepper-sprayed, and ending in being tazed or shot with a firearm by LE personnel.
The results showed that yes – minority citizens did appear statistically substantially more likely to receive nonlethal rough treatment from LE. But then they looked at more extreme levels of violence – and a curious result emerged.
As the level of violence increased, the difference between treatment of minority subjects and the treatment of white subjects remained roughly constant. That is, it remained roughly constant until the most extreme levels of police use of force (taser or firearms) were reached.
At that point . . . the bias against minorities vanished. In fact, it actually appears to have reversed.
The study extensively studied the most extreme uses of police force – shootings and the use of a taser. And when it came to being on the receiving end of a shooting, well . . . Black Americans were statistically substantially less likely – specifically, greater than 20% less likely – to be shot during a police encounter than their white counterparts. This seemingly aberrant result held true (though the magnitude was reduced) even after multiple corrective measures were applied to the data to correct for various sources of possible unrelated correlations leading to false indications of bias.
The same appears to be true for incidents involving use of a taser (extensive data on that form of incident from Houston, TX, was available). However, the study doesn’t directly address that issue in its conclusions.
The result observed for raw data relating to these shootings was well outside the statistical standard error for the data on hand. That means the result appears to be statistically significant – and thus real.
These results also held true even when type of encounter was considered as a factor – e.g., when attempts were made to categorize police shooting incidents by whether or not police use of deadly force appeared clearly justified. Even in events where a police officer would appear to have been clearly justified in shooting, minority offenders appeared to be statistically less likely to be shot than white offenders under similar circumstances.
The study also found that both Black and white suspects involved in a police shooting were roughly equally likely to have been armed.
The same general results, with smaller magnitude, for shootings were observed in the raw data for police shootings involving Hispanic Americans – that is, Hispanics were also observed to be somewhat less likely to be shot (about 8.5%) during a police encounter than white Americans. However, in the case of Hispanic Americans the difference appears to have been within the statistical standard error of the data set, so the result cannot be considered statistically significant.
In short: the study found no evidence of racial bias in police shootings. When police were forced to shoot, race was apparently not a factor. In fact, if anything white citizens seemed statistically a bit more likely to be the ones on the receiving end of police lead, statistically speaking.
There may well be a problem with police using rough treatment inequitably. But any inequity doesn’t appear to extend to shootings. Those appear to be race-neutral.
. . .
So, you ask: just who is this Roland G. Fryer, Jr.? Is he some John Birch Society type, or perhaps a KKK or Aryan Brotherhood member? This study is all just bogus claptrap cobbled together by some ignorant racist – right?
Hardly.
Fryer happens to be a university professor with a doctorate degree – a professor of economics, specifically. So he knows a thing or two about data collection, data reduction, and statistical analysis.
Fryer also isn’t some some second-rate academic teaching at some non-accredited college run by religious fanatics, or at some local community college or small, second-rate college. The guy happens to be a tenured professor at Harvard. Yeah, that Harvard.
Finally: Fryer happens to be African-American. In fact, he’s the youngest African-American professor ever to receive tenure at Harvard – as well as the first to receive recognition as the most promising US economist under the age of 40, the John Bates Clark medal.
Fryer has indicated that his result concerning shootings and minorities are “the most surprising result of my career”. But he appears to be standing by his conclusions – though he does offer the standard caveats (i.e., incomplete data, possible data unreliability due to voluntary participation, etc . . .) one would expect regarding any such study. He also indicates that more research is needed to reach a definitive conclusion regarding police use of violence nationwide.
Fryar has offered a theory concerning the disparity, one which is supported by his data but which he admits that though descriptive may not be correct. His theory is that police essentially “do what works”, and that some fraction of police are indeed racially biased. But shooting or tazing someone impose high negative consequences on a policeman even if justified, so at that point reason takes over from bias in those individuals who are racially biased and they act responsibly.
FWIW: I think Fryar may well be on to something with his theory. Racism does still exist, but IMO it’s hardly the pervasive conspiracy some claim. Learning the truth – vice listening to BS from those with an agenda, or who profit from stirring up trouble – is the first step to improving the situation. IMO Fryer has made a contribution to learning the truth here by creating the first data set suitable for detailed study, and for conducting the initial analysis. I hope he manages to get the wherewithal to study the matter further.
. . .
You can read an article about Fryer’s study published by the NYT here. (It’s the NYT, so if anything IMO it somewhat downplays Fryer’s conclusions.) Or you can read the study for yourself here – and can read the appendix to the study, which gives additional details, here. Fair warning: there is indeed math involved. (smile)
Unfortunately, I’m guessing Prof. Fryer is about to become persona non grata among his leftist academic colleagues. And I’m guessing those leftist colleagues will pull out all the stops in an attempt to block publication of his study or to convince him to change it substantially (it’s currently in pre-publication draft and has yet to be published).
Sometimes the truth is indeed inconvenient. Especially when it’s backed by hard data and doesn’t “support the agenda”.
Findings to be reported on ABC, CBS, NBC and Clinton News Network in 5-4-3-2- …
Oh yeah, holding my breath on this one.
There is a lot of lying bullshyt out there….from many sources including mostly media and politicians, BLM on and on ad nauseum…but as a former police officer I can tell you exactly how it is…..they act like a lady, they get treated like a lady, they act like a gentleman, they get treated like a gentleman…..any else, anything less,….expect what you get and STFU!!!
It may be published, but it will be buried and forgotten, because it doesn’t fit the meme.
The picture of racist police violence painted in the last eight years has been crafted very carefully, because it’s useful for the next election. The very timing of this study is sure to damn it before it hits print.
Harvard? Lefties? Oh, pleeezze. On the surface, maybe, but it’s a private university, not state/public tax-supported and its alumni (moneyed) base leans the opposite of the leftwingnuts.
However, the idea that this study will be dismissed or buried is valid. If it doesn’t fit in with current populist notions, it won’t get past the front door. Some future grad student doing a term paper may dig it up in the reference section 10-15 years from now, when all the noise has died down (yes, it will) and briefly quote it, then move on.
You might want to look at their 2015 financial statement, Ex-PH2. Not that much, percentage-wise, of Harvard’s revenue comes from donors these days.
http://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/harvard_financialreport_fy15.pdf
About 20% of their operating revenue comes from endowment fund income (Harvard owns the fund outright, and it’s worth around $55 billion, and is increasing steadily). Another nearly 17% is paid by research grants (among grants, the single biggest sponsor is HHS). “Other income” (parking fees, student health fees, publishing fees and royalties, etc . . . ) provides another 13+%. Net student income (tuition/fees/etc . . . , less scholarships) accounts for nearly another 22%. Income from gifts for current use represents less than 10%.
Only around 10% of Harvard’s operating income comes from donors. And they ran a net surplus last year. So to sum up: they don’t exactly have to kowtow to their donor base these days. And there are enough rich and left-leaning alumni (even in the financial world) that they don’t really have to.
And yeah: the faculty at Harvard, with the exception of perhaps the science and technology fields, is generally left-leaning. Bigtime.
Hate to disagree with you Ex, but VERY few universities can be deemed truly private at this point (I’ve spent more time in them than I care to admit). Fact is, the full professors at the school are largely funded by the govt through research grants, the students pay the exorbitant tuition with govt backed loans (which can be withheld for noncompliance with govt directives) and if the govt wants to take you over the coals over Title IX- they can and will.
As for the alumni, some will withhold donations for political reasons (conservative business owners), others will give out of a sense of liberal white guilt.
Harvard is as free of state support/control as is West Point.
The young professor who conducted the study will be re-educated and will renounce or seriously modify his own work.
Well, it HAS been some decades since I was in school and a private institution like Yale or Hahvahd was considered quite exclusive. So I guess I’m a dinosaur, right?
“But you’re our dinosaur,” said the other dinosaurs.
as long as the coffee cups doesn’t make concentric ripples when you’re approaching, it’s all good.
Haven’t hung around Cambridge lately, have ya?
Harvard is hugely liberal, both faculty and student body. Ditto MIT.
FACTS?!?!??
What are you going to believe facts or the clear evidence of racist police as shown on TV and talked about by the president.
Don’t be bringing facts to this discussion
“Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.” – Homer Simpson
I accidentally hit the “report comments” sorry!
Don’t be bringing fact up here at TAH… CLong and Lars will show up and start getting the vapors over “the facts”
Those aren’t the same person?
Fryer has indicated that his result concerning shootings and minorities are “the most surprising result of my career”.
So if he was surprised, I guess the result didn’t agree with his pre-conceived conclusion. He may have biased, but good on him to recognize it and publish the study. Now if he were a “climate” scientist, what do you think he would have done with the data.
Remember the science is settled…..
Can’t really say I blame the guy for being surprised – the numbers for shootings and tazings are reveresed with respect to those for other forms of police uses of force, which do show lesser forms of violence are used more often against minority subjects. I’d have also expected the trend established by lesser categories in the use of force spectrum to hold true for more extreme violence.
It didn’t. There was a clear breakpoint when it same to extreme force, along with an abrupt reversal of the previous trend.
I read that study a couple days ago. It is dense. I would point out that he reviewed data from few cities and no rural areas so generalizing from it is risky. It looks like good work and he did try very hard to validate his measurements. I am cautiously optimistic.
John Lott is good at finding flaws in studies like this, I would like to hear what he thinks of it.
I think that the study documents something interesting. Compared to their ratio of the population, black people get hassled more than white/hispanic people when the police contact them. Maybe it would help to figure out why that is.
Another interesting thing. Asian people get hassled and shot less often that white or Hispanic people. Is there a useful message there? I’m think about stereotypes about how polite different races are.
What about that, deep thinkers? Any correlation there?
Well, if you go with the theory that the amount of violence a police officer uses is directly proportional to the actions and attitude of whoever they are attempting to arrest, then it stands to reason that the more polite the arrestee is then the less violence the arrestor will use.
Gee, you don’t suppose that that little truism has anything to do with why responsible parents tell their kids to be very polite and respectful during any encounter with law enforcement? All races give their kids “the talk,” in spite of what the race baiters would have us believe.
Um, not exactly. Data from several of the locations includes a relatively large amount of rural area.
While the data from Houston, Austin, Dallas, NYC, and the counties of Pinelas, Jacksonville, and Lee in Florida are predominantly urban, the other locations surveyed include substantial rural areas. LA County extends inland roughly 100 miles and includes a substantial amount of rural area. Likewise, three of the counties in Florida (Palm Beach, Orange, and Brevard counties) include a substantial amount of rural area. In particular, Palm Beach county extends inland to nearly the mid-point of the Florida peninsula; Orange County extends from the eastern edge of the Orlando area nearly to Florida’s east coast.
It would indeed be interesting to see a control study that was largely rural. Unfortunately, that’s likely at least an order of magnitude larger effort (hugely larger number of data sources, making data collection much more difficult if one wants to obtain a large sample). Plus, national surveys have already shown that violent crime is predominantly an urban issue; rural areas and small towns are in general low-crime areas. It therefore makes sense to concentrate on urban areas, because (to paraphrase the 1920s/1930s bank robber Willie Sutton), “That’s where the crime is.”
I used to live in Alaska. I dispute your statement, “Plus, national surveys have already shown that violent crime is predominantly an urban issue; rural areas and small towns are in general low-crime areas.” I offer this link: http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/01/02/the-most-dangerous-states-in-america-2/4/ showing the top four states with the highest violent crime rate are Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico, and Alaska. And this link to FBI UCR data: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-4 Showing the top five violent crime rate states in 2013 to be Washington DC (double the Alaska number), Alaska, New Mexico, Nevada, and Tennessee. I think crime happens where the people are (many more in cities) but city rates may be lower than rural area rates. Is it your position that all of the crime in those states happens in the urban area? Only DC is all urban, the rest of those states vary from about 60% urban to about 85% urban so I don’t think so. I wrote a log entry system for a small Alaska police department – we had our share. More-rural areas have smaller departments with less extra money for data gathering. There would be more agencies to talk to, more differences in policies, more PII problems, and the demographics would be different so the results would be less clear. But, in my opinion, to say that violent crime is a mostly a city issue is inaccurate — except for Washington DC 🙂 Another little issue, see footnote 13 on page 11 of the study. It says that they generated data by reading the narrative created by the officer. They could only get those narratives when they had a friend in the department. They tried to use AI to read the narratives and generate the data but it was not successful. Imagine trying to get that data for dozens or hundreds of small departments. Footnote 20 and the paragraph that it is attached to is also important. I am NOT trying to say that his conclusions are wrong. I am trying to say that his results are more about specific cities and that many other cities and most rural areas are… Read more »
Yes, I stand by that assertion. And FBI data from 2014 supports my assertion.
The FBI table you link to is a by state/by region table. In each case, it combines non-urban and urban data within a political jurisdiction or region. Because of that, except for DC (all urban) it’s impossible to see the effect of the urban/rural crime split. That’s why many on the left love that particular set of statistics – it obfuscates reality and allows them to push an agenda using “official data”.
However, this table provides a different view: urban/small city/rural. That is, it provides US crime statistics broken out by Metro Statistical Areas, cities outside Metro Areas, and rural areas. It also provides US national statistics in each area.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-2
That table very clearly shows that crime is largely a city problem. US crime rates across the board are dramatically higher in Metro areas and smaller cities than they are in rural areas and smaller towns. Indeed, the urban effect is enough to dramatically skew the US overall crime rate statistics far above those seen in rural areas and small towns.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-2
The statistics presented there clearly show that the rate of violent crime and property crime in US rural areas is less than 1/2 that of smaller cities and Metro areas. Due to the skewing of national statistics by crime in Metro areas and smaller cities, the national rates are also roughly twice those of rural areas and small towns.
I’d have to look at the more detailed tables (they’re available), but I’d bet a ten-spot against a cup of coffee that four areas in TN dominate and skew dramatically violent and property crime statistics for TN: Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville. All are substantial metro areas in an otherwise largely rural state.
Addendum: here’s the state-by-state breakout version of the table I cited in the previous comment. It provides more granularity, and is also revealing.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
Fryer indicates that the data in his study is from a very small data set, primarily from data recovered from the Houston Texas PD because they do such a good job of recording the information. He stated he was surprised by the results but also made clear the data sets from across the nation need to be done to the high standard in Houston.
Good data nationally will lead to a good study analysis. I suspect Mr. Fryer’s conclusions from the 10 cities he did review would be indicative a national trend, which would very much deflate the augemented (read; false) reality behind the BLM narrative.
Additionally this data set should be cause for that long overdue and uncomfortable discussion on race and the reality of crime. Why does a population representing less then 15% of the total population be the perpetrators and victims in almost half of all homicide related violence? I think we all have some theories on what’s happened to the black family over the last 50 years of being helped by the democrats….black single parent families have gone from being less than 25% of all black family situations to being over 75% of all black family situations. Additionally the large occurrence of babies having babies hasn’t helped create a strong family foundation to guide young black men into a future of economic opportunity based on a firmly grounded education.
We’ve created as a nation a terrible segregation of one segment of the population in the guise of “helping”…once again proving that the most frightening phrase in the US is, “Hello, we’re from the government and we’re here to help.”
I doubt we’ll have that discussion, and I doubt the media will start showing the young white men who are gunned down by police throughout the US as well…nor will the media actually discuss the fractional percentages of these outcomes when contrasted against the sheer volume of police arrests and civilian interactions each year.
Yep – the study MUST be summarily dismissed because it’s obvious bias cannot be allowed to be read. Facts don’t matter.
(Hey! Can we start a new movement called #FactsMatter?)
Seriously, this data analysis strongly suggests that police use of force just might have more to do with the actions of those being arrested than any other single factor. Whodathunkit.
Perhaps, OWB. But the documented statistical bias in observed use of non-lethal force argues there may be something else at play as well – something that goes away when the force needed becomes extreme.
As I noted above: I do hope Fryer can obtain funding to conduct a larger study of the matter. I suspect there are mixed underlying causes, which may indeed vary from place to place.
But without reliable data, we can only guess at what’s going on; we cannot know. And without knowing the truth about what’s happening, we can’t even determine whether there really is a problem that needs fixing – much less how to fix it.
Hondo, I’m with you on hoping he gets the funding. It was refreshing to see a study that examined the data without adding commentary or bias by the researcher. Just simple data reviewed and conclusions drawn from what the data actually indicated instead of interpolation of what it might mean.
A larger controlled study may or may not be possible depending on which departments collect this data. To date police involved shooting data isn’t required by the FBI, consequently there are not a lot of organizations collecting or reporting the data of this nature.
Requiring all PDs to submit this data would be a good step in the correct direction because as you clearly point out, without the data there’s not much that can be studied, and without good data there’s not much of a correct conclusion that can be determined.
Thanks for posting this article I read this study earlier in the week when it was announced and rather enjoyed the direct and accurate nature of the study.
Well, VOV, there’s a couple of issues with requiring PDs to report the data: Federalism and resources.
Last time I checked, Federal authorities don’t have the authority to compel local jurisdictions to do that – something about enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment, as I recall. I’m quite reluctant to give the Federal government that authority. What’s next: a requirement for citizens to report details concerning their sex lives?
Second: who pays? Compiling, “binning”, vetting, and reporting the data isn’t free – and local PDs aren’t going to be thrilled to be told to do it on their nickle. They probably won’t.
Indeed, this is precisely why Fryer’s study took 3,000+ staff-hours of labor overall. Much of the data had to be manually extracted from police reports. I wouldn’t be surprised if extracting, vetting, and reporting this data required a level of effort at least equivalent to around 1/3 to 1/2 a full-time position in many larger jurisdictions – and maybe more, depending on the administrative “red tape” involved in internal review of the results before they were reported.
From the local PD’s perspective, that’s 100% overhead they have to “eat”. Doesn’t surprise me a bit that they’d balk at being told to do so, even if they had absolutely nothing to hide.
Instead of importing jihadis maybe we could allocate federal monies to fund a position to do exactly that.
If we deem it important enough to study, and perhaps we don’t, we should consider a means to fund the process. Missouri did it on a state wide scale as it relates to race in police stops and outcomes. They funded the program and determined it important enough to do so. If any lives matter, black or white, when it comes to lethal outcomes in police work the funding would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we piss away on useless shit.
But I understand your point about the Federalism issue, that might require a bit more finesse.
Providing funding contingent on voluntary compliance might be the ticket. But the questions remains: how much, and to whom?
Don’t be so sure that the funding is a “drop in the bucket”, even for the Federal government. There are a helluva lot of LE departments in the US. Do we really want all of them to do this? If so, that’s considerable coin. And remember: “drops in the bucket” eventually fill the bucket. Uncle Sam is already broke as hell and living on credit.
The question of how much $$$ is required also comes to mind. Not all departments will have enough arrests to justify 1/3 or 1/2 FTE for the effort – and some may have enough “volume” to justify substantially more (LAPD, NYC, Chicago come to mind). How do you sort that out?
Worth doing? Probably. But significant practical problems remain to be ironed out. I’m guessing they won’t be, fully, and that instead we’ll get sampling instead – but of a broader type, like maybe the top 10 metro areas plus a representative sample (25?) of smaller cities along with a representative sample (100?) of rural counties scattered nationwide.
Lastly, I cannot endorse the Federal government trying to make reporting of this type mandatory. That seems to me to fall clearly out of the scope of Federal authority. Indeed, if I recall correctly the current crime reporting by local jurisdictions to the FBI are voluntary.
Sorry, touch screen had me hit the report instead of reply. I’ve been a lurker around here a long time, but thought i might contribute to this discussion. In the Fire Service, we use a reporting standard called NFIRS- National Fire Incident Reporting System- we use it for all reports for every call we run, it has standardized data collection points, regardless of which particular program you use. I believe it is tied to funding, specifically he ability to apply for federal grants-if you don’t report, you can’t apply- as it is integrated into our reports, it doesn’t add much time, and I’d have to believe that a similar program could be developed for LE
I agree.
We used the FireHouse software and it was fairly easy to pull up acurate data to fill out the grant applications with.
I agree. This needs to be addressed on a wider scale. It won’t stop the angry rhetoric or the sensationalism in the media streams, but when the noise dies down, it may change some things.
There’s something else to consider in this. Everything like the current angry rhetoric state has a lifespan. The Days of Rage in 1969 during the Chicago Seven trial followed the hippie demonstrations during the 1968 DNC convention in Chicago. Remember that one? Hizzoner John Daley (Richie’s daddy) gave the order ‘shoot to kill’. I’m sure there’s a video of it somewhere, even though it was on tape instead of a digital medium, which did not exist back then. That sparked even more outrage. Then there was the shooting at Kent State University and by that time, the Vietnam War was beginning to slowly wind down and those hippies and draft card burners had to quit protesting and find jobs or go hungry. At some point, it petered out and stopped, but not really until the Weather Underground detonated their bomb making factory and killed a few people in the process. I don’t remember if Ayers and Dorn were arrested for holding up an armored car before that or afterwards, but I think it was afterwards. I still hope to find out that they both go senile in my lifetime. Anyway, this whole cycle of turmoil started with bodaprez keeping his job for another four years and people rebelling against being told they couldn’t get into national parks because he said so, and because of so-called sequestration. Throwing traffic cones into ditches that were put there to block people from a common route that let them see the Big Four (on Mt. Rushmore) carved into a cliff was only one of those protests. There was that call for a million truckers to invade Washington, DC and clog traffic. And closing the Blue Ridge Parkway, blocking access to national monuments in WDC, etc. – all that crap, all ordered by one fucking asshole because he got to keep his job for another four years. Did it work? No, it did not, and it made people really hate him for what he is – a self-centered asswipe slacker with a brain the size of a pea and the personality of a used donut… Read more »
Economy of word is not a hallmark of this thread.
“Brevity is the soul of wit.”
“Are Minorities Treated More Violently by Police? Yes – and No.”
There you go, “Yes – and No” that’s your answer.
There are some in our society that yearn for the bad old days. Some were around in the ’60 and ’70s, others obviously were not. Some of our younger folks desire to be a part of a movement, in some cases any movement, noble or not.
I appreciate the article, unfortunately no amount of data and analyses will change the minds of people whose thoughts and actions are based on emotion.
The community organizers among us are applying Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” whether we (or even they) realize it.
Wake up ‘Merica before it’s too late…
Brevity is also common among those who have little meaningful to contribute – but who are smart enough to realize that fact. Unfortunately, it’s also common among those who should speak up – but who don’t have the moral courage to do so.
My point is that neither brevity nor long exposition is inherently “correct”. Which is correct and which is not is content-dependent.
It’s just as bad to keep one’s mouth shut when you have something meaningful to contribute as it is to “wax ignorant” when you have nothing meaningful to say.
Hondo, I recently (days ago) read an article which I now cannot find, that pointed out the fact that in many areas of the country crime statistics include Hispanics in the racial classification of White since Hispanic is an ethnic rather than a racial term. On the other hand, some areas, such as New York City and Los Angeles, have a separate reporting classification for Hispanics.
This failure of many areas to separate Hispanic crime from white crime tends to skew the overall data outcomes badly. I’m wondering what impact this reality may have on this study. Do you know if it is accounted for in the data analysis?
Found the article:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/13/how-the-federal-government-inflates-crime-statistics-for-whites/
Yes. I believe I clearly noted in the article that the same effect was found for Hispanic Americans vis-a-vis white Americans (technically, Other – so it likely includes those of Oriental heritage also). However, in the case of Hispanic Americans and shootings, the observed result (e.g., that it was statistically less likely for Hispanic Americans to be shot during a police encounter than white Americans) was smaller (8.5% or so vice 20+%) than for Black Americans and was within the standard error for the data set. The latter means that the result is not statistically significant and should not be taken as definitive.
Does this study make any difference in my life? Absolutely not! As permitted by law, I will continue to exercise my CCW permit and remain vigilant every time my wife and I are out in public. Do I look even closer at certain groups and individuals as they approach the space/area we are in? ABSOLUTELY YES! Do I give a rat’s ass what ANYONE on this planet cares about this attitude? Not on, but HELL NO!!!! Black Panthers, Muslim Brotherhood, any Jihahdist-looking fucker with or without a turban, AND any group of whites that look like thugs within my safe space………DON’T EVEN CONSIDER fucking with this 71 year old veteran who has paid his dues and enjoys life with a wife I never deserved. The doors to our church are visible with a clear open space to a major busy state highway less than 400 yards. This writer can always be found carrying even to church, sitting at the back with the doors easily in my line of sight. Maybe a “Don’t Even Think of It” sign around my neck would be appropriate. ANY of the above are perceived as threats by me, fucking paranoid label bothers me in NOT THE LEAST! If people are weak enough to rely on reports and studies by others to decide whether to live and behave as thinking and prepared, tough luck if they suffer the consequences of fools. MY guess is the great majority of those who post on this web site (particularly if they have served and worn the uniform)all pretty much harbor at least some of these thoughts. The people who create the studies are wasting time preaching to this choir. Faced with violence I stand prepared and ready to deal with it head on, perhaps losing my life because I was physically prepared, but you can ABSOLUTELY COUNT ON a bunch of the mfkrs ending up in the prone position beside me. Finally, all those who died in the French truck assassination, let that be our warning to be always aware of danger. Make it a point to tell those… Read more »
^^^^^ WORD !!
Well, except for the church part…..;-)
Speaking only for myself I’ve had both positive and negative experiences with LEO’S. I’ve been caught dead to rights speeding and gotten off with a warning and I’ve been pulled over and cited when I was driving under the posted speed limits. A few years back I had a buddy of mine who is a Tn State Trooper come to our church and speak on police interactions. We went into the parking lot and he pulled me over and we gave a step by step block of instruction on what to do when pulled over by the police. This was primarily for the youth but the entire congregation got involved.
The bottom line is comply with the officers instructions and live to file a formal complaint or take it through the court system if your rights have been violated. Cops are human and they aren’t perfect. Like every organization in America there are bad apples but the worst thing is paint everyone with a broad brush .
In a perfect world no one’s rights would be violated…. that world doesn’t exist. How you present yourself has a lot to do with how you’re treated.
As far as violence the only time a cop has given me a little act right were those fucking Navy SP’s at Guantanamo!! Just kidding I was TDY aboard the USCG Cutter Steadfast in 91 and the CPO’S got a little rowdy at the Chiefs Mess on Gold Hill towers.
Tony, sooner or later it occurs that you must be black. Judging in particular from your experience as recreated at church. Believe it or not, redneck white trash (the few who spend life creating trouble for personal attention) faces the same profiling. Big difference, there are some who revel in not only being pilled over, but ending up in jail for a night or so. Then there’s the drunk or drugged whites who go out of their way to duke it out with a cop when pulled over. Maybe whites are not pulled over as often but don’t ever think we get free reign of the road.
Your point is right on the money….It’s ALL about attitude when pulled over. Even whites get hassled by the occasional redneck cop (small town, more often than not)and we do get sick of it. Again, it’s just easier to play their game, address them as “sir” and let them send us on our way leaving the cop with a slightly swollen head thinking, “I showed them fellers!”
Jarhead, I couldn’t agree with you more. I taught my kids the same “yes sir/ no sir” to authority figures regardless of their age. I know exactly what you’re talking about regarding dirt bags that go out of their way to cause trouble for themselves as if it’s an accomplishment. I don’t buy into the system is stacked the man is keeping me down bullshit! That should be rocket fuel motivation to work your ass off and not let your lot in life be determined by anything except your will. America may not be perfect but it is light years ahead of any other country on this planet.