• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police are MORE Likely to Shoot WHITE Suspects Than BLACK Suspects, Study Finds

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,278
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
From Slate:
"Data about law enforcement's use of force are notoriously spotty. But the Washington Post, which has created a database to track police shootings, has found that black people make up a disproportionate percentage of victims in lethal police shootings. The question is: Why? Is it because blacks are more likely to have run-ins with law enforcement? Or are police more likely to open fire on black suspects?

Fryer's findings seem to support the former theory. Much of his analysis is based on a large, random sample of arrest reports from the city of Houston, each of which his team analyzed for 300 different variables. The cases all involved a crime where, theoretically, the use of lethal force might have been legally justifiable in some circumstances—ranging from attempted murder of an officer down to resisting arrest. Based on the raw data, the researchers find that black and Hispanic suspects were in fact less likely to be shot in these confrontations than whites. After controlling for a comprehensive set of factors such as whether or not the suspect was found with a weapon, they find no statistically significant difference in the likelihood of suspects being shot based on their race.

What about in other cities? Along with Houston, Fryer and his team collected police reports on more than 1,000 shootings involving officers in Los Angeles, Dallas, Austin, Orlando, Jacksonville, and four smaller counties in Florida. Of course, these documents tell us nothing about whether cops in these locales are more likely overall to use their guns on blacks than whites, given that all of the cases involve a weapon being fired. But they do tell us about the circumstances under which officers decide to employ lethal force. After controlling for all the circumstances surrounding the incidents, such as the kind of crime involved or the time of day, Fryer found that police were 47 percent less likely to shoot black suspects who hadn't already attacked them compared with whites. And they were 43 percent less likely to fire on Hispanics, compared with whites."


Study finds police officers no more likely to shoot black suspects.

Thoughts?
Comments?

This study proves that we've gotten it all wrong when addressing how police handle incidents involving black, white, and Hispanic suspects.
 
I think the common denominator in police shootings is the default attitude of the perp is one of "non-cooperation. So the base line is already heading south at the beginning.

It's almost as if they are saying "I'm not going to cooperate with a cop unless I'm the one who called him".

It transcends race.
 
There are more whites in the US than blacks... hence bigger chance.. boy those statistics are hard for the American right wing.
 
From Slate:
"Data about law enforcement's use of force are notoriously spotty. But the Washington Post, which has created a database to track police shootings, has found that black people make up a disproportionate percentage of victims in lethal police shootings. The question is: Why? Is it because blacks are more likely to have run-ins with law enforcement? Or are police more likely to open fire on black suspects?

Fryer's findings seem to support the former theory. Much of his analysis is based on a large, random sample of arrest reports from the city of Houston, each of which his team analyzed for 300 different variables. The cases all involved a crime where, theoretically, the use of lethal force might have been legally justifiable in some circumstances—ranging from attempted murder of an officer down to resisting arrest. Based on the raw data, the researchers find that black and Hispanic suspects were in fact less likely to be shot in these confrontations than whites. After controlling for a comprehensive set of factors such as whether or not the suspect was found with a weapon, they find no statistically significant difference in the likelihood of suspects being shot based on their race.

What about in other cities? Along with Houston, Fryer and his team collected police reports on more than 1,000 shootings involving officers in Los Angeles, Dallas, Austin, Orlando, Jacksonville, and four smaller counties in Florida. Of course, these documents tell us nothing about whether cops in these locales are more likely overall to use their guns on blacks than whites, given that all of the cases involve a weapon being fired. But they do tell us about the circumstances under which officers decide to employ lethal force. After controlling for all the circumstances surrounding the incidents, such as the kind of crime involved or the time of day, Fryer found that police were 47 percent less likely to shoot black suspects who hadn't already attacked them compared with whites. And they were 43 percent less likely to fire on Hispanics, compared with whites."


Study finds police officers no more likely to shoot black suspects.

Thoughts?
Comments?

This study proves that we've gotten it all wrong when addressing how police handle incidents involving black, white, and Hispanic suspects.

That's because there's more white people than black people. That's why they're called "minorities."
 
There are more whites in the US than blacks... hence bigger chance.. boy those statistics are hard for the American right wing.

That's because there's more white people than black people. That's why they're called "minorities."

Look at the the main city where data was sampled;

Houston - 17.3% black
35% Hispanic
39% white

Blacks and Hispanics combined outnumber whites in Houston, if the myth is true that police officers use force disproportionately on minorities, numbers should reflect that, they don't.

Instead the data showed that police officers are more likely to shoot white suspects who hadn't attacked them.

The Harvard professor who conducted the study is black by the way.
 
Look at the the main city where data was sampled;

Houston - 17.3% black
35% Hispanic
39% white

Blacks and Hispanics combined outnumber whites in Houston, if the myth is true that police officers use force disproportionately on minorities, numbers should reflect that, they don't.

Instead the data showed that police officers are more likely to shoot white suspects who hadn't attacked them.

The Harvard professor who conducted the study is black by the way.

Your study also found that blacks were more likely to be arrested and to have non-lethal force used. I don't think you read it except as far as it confirmed your bias.

Also, the study is from July. For some reason you only choose to trumpet it now.

Regardless of anyone's race, I think it's troubling when police need to use so much force. They often use force that is not warranted (something else in the study). I myself have been thrown to the ground and handcuffed without even being arrested. I presented no force, I was sitting on my couch. I did not possess a gun, and did not threaten anybody. They just wanted me out of the way so my ex could move out. That's still a problem.

My guess is that you only care so that you can continue the alt-right talking points about how whites are persecuted.
 
Last edited:
Your study also found that blacks were more likely to be arrested and to have non-lethal force used. I don't think you read it except as far as it confirmed your bias.

I read the whole thing, the data about non-lethal force was only complied from areas with stop and frisk practices in effect, which happen to be areas that are highly concentrated with black residents.

And besides, the current racial frenzy that the media is pushing isn't about non-lethal force, it's about lethal police shootings of unarmed black men. Yet... the Slate article I posted says that police are actually more likely to shoot and kill white suspects who were not an eminent threat to them.



Also, the study is from July. For some reason you only choose to trumpet it now.
July was 2 months ago, lol. The data couldn't have expired and become irrelevant in only 2 months. Try again.
Regardless of anyone's race, I think it's troubling when police need to use so much force. They often use force that is not warranted (something else in the study). I myself have been thrown to the ground and handcuffed without even being arrested. I presented no force, I was sitting on my couch. I did not possess a gun, and did not threaten anybody. They just wanted me out of the way so my ex could move out. That's still a problem.

Some people are going to hate the police regardless of what the facts say. I fully realize that.

Why were the police called in so that your ex could move out?

My guess is that you only care so that you can continue the alt-right talking points about how whites are persecuted.

That's right, is the big scurry alt-right conspiracy that disproved your bias against police officers..........nope it was a liberal news site called Slate!
 
Look at the the main city where data was sampled;

Houston - 17.3% black
35% Hispanic
39% white

Blacks and Hispanics combined outnumber whites in Houston, if the myth is true that police officers use force disproportionately on minorities, numbers should reflect that, they don't.

Instead the data showed that police officers are more likely to shoot white suspects who hadn't attacked them.

The Harvard professor who conducted the study is black by the way.

Hispanics are white..
 
Hispanics are white..

jajajaja

Ok, then fly from Denmark to Los Angeles, and walk around East LA for a bit. You'll fit right in!
Try to dress like a tourist from Europe as well, with Birkenstock sandals, shorts, a fanny pack, and a I Love LA t shirt.

That would be hilarious.
 
Hispanics are white..

I find it interesting that the only time Hispanics, which are considered a minority here in the US, are referred to as "white" is when someone or some group wants to ignore data that doesn't fit their agenda. But the moment that someone wants to use data that does fit their agenda the "white hispanics" phrase is never brought up.

If you're against illegal immigration: "You're a racist against hispanics because their skin is brown!"
Trayvon/Zimmerman case: "Zimmerman is a white hispanic! He shot Trayvon because he's racist!"
Cops treatment of civilians: "Cops disproportionately shoot blacks and hispanics more than whites!"

Wait...didn't you just say that hispanics are white? Guess that even further proves the OP's point.
 
I find it interesting that the only time Hispanics, which are considered a minority here in the US, are referred to as "white" is when someone or some group wants to ignore data that doesn't fit their agenda. But the moment that someone wants to use data that does fit their agenda the "white hispanics" phrase is never brought up.

If you're against illegal immigration: "You're a racist against hispanics because their skin is brown!"
Trayvon/Zimmerman case: "Zimmerman is a white hispanic! He shot Trayvon because he's racist!"
Cops treatment of civilians: "Cops disproportionately shoot blacks and hispanics more than whites!"

Wait...didn't you just say that hispanics are white? Guess that even further proves the OP's point.

Only thing it proves is that the US has a race problem that many Americans are denying.
 
Only thing it proves is that the US has a race problem that many Americans are denying.

Yes, America does have a race problem. A problem that has been further exacerbated by politicians that have used race as a tool to garner votes in order to stay in power. Before Obama ran for office the first time it was a problem. One could even say that racial tensions/problems had been healing slowly but steadily. But it has grown far worse since then. This election season has been the worst in my life time.

And no, I'm not blaming Obama specifically. I'm blaming every politician that has used race to garner votes. How many times did we hear politicians claim that one group or other was racist just because they opposed Obama's policies? How many times has our media focused on the race of someone while making claims before all the facts are in?

Politicians are supposed to be diplomats that are supposed to represent everyone in their district at the very least regardless if they're republican or democrat, black or white. And I'm pretty sure that there isn't a single politician out there who has only one race and/or one political affiliation in their district.

Journalists are supposed to be neutral in their commentary and relaying of FACTS. Yet all that we ever see now a days is partisan hackery no matter what news program you listen in on or read.

Yes. America has a Race Problem. MOST of it is created.
 
I find it interesting that the only time Hispanics, which are considered a minority here in the US, are referred to as "white" is when someone or some group wants to ignore data that doesn't fit their agenda. But the moment that someone wants to use data that does fit their agenda the "white hispanics" phrase is never brought up.

If you're against illegal immigration: "You're a racist against hispanics because their skin is brown!"
Trayvon/Zimmerman case: "Zimmerman is a white hispanic! He shot Trayvon because he's racist!"
Cops treatment of civilians: "Cops disproportionately shoot blacks and hispanics more than whites!"

Wait...didn't you just say that hispanics are white? Guess that even further proves the OP's point.

at one time Hispanics were counted as "white" when they were crime suspects or convicted criminals but were counted as "hispanics" when they were the victims of crime

BTW in the last couple years, the form one fills out to buy a firearm used to have several choices-white, asian, african american-now you choose hispanic or non-hispanic as well as other racial choices (questions 10 a and 10b)


the first image is the old version

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-FORM-4473-pg1bg.gif

the second is the new one


4473-screenshot-800x328.jpg
 
at one time Hispanics were counted as "white" when they were crime suspects or convicted criminals but were counted as "hispanics" when they were the victims of crime

BTW in the last couple years, the form one fills out to buy a firearm used to have several choices-white, asian, african american-now you choose hispanic or non-hispanic as well as other racial choices (questions 10 a and 10b)


the first image is the old version

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-FORM-4473-pg1bg.gif

the second is the new one


View attachment 67207753

What's even more ironic is that "hispanic" isn't even a race. Its people who can trace their ancestry to Spain and surrounding areas and its about a type of culture. Why its even on any form period is baffling. (Of course imo why race matters on any form is baffling to me also) I mean, why don't they have "African" or "European" or "Arab" or any other culture on there? What's so special about "hispanic" that it deserve to be on forms more than any other ethnicity out there?
 
Only thing it proves is that the US has a race problem that many Americans are denying.

320,000,000 people and growing, and most people find a way to get along. If all you know about America is what you see on TV in Denmark, I can well understand you misconstruing the situation.
 
What's even more ironic is that "hispanic" isn't even a race. Its people who can trace their ancestry to Spain and surrounding areas and its about a type of culture. Why its even on any form period is baffling. (Of course imo why race matters on any form is baffling to me also) I mean, why don't they have "African" or "European" or "Arab" or any other culture on there? What's so special about "hispanic" that it deserve to be on forms more than any other ethnicity out there?

A bit of nitpicking...

A Mayan up from the Yucatan is more likely to be determined to by "Hispanic or Latino" than they are "American Indian" even though they are "Indians" of the Americas.

Latinos include those with no connection to Spain other than a language and location.
 
A bit of nitpicking...

A Mayan up from the Yucatan is more likely to be determined to by "Hispanic or Latino" than they are "American Indian" even though they are "Indians" of the Americas.

Latinos include those with no connection to Spain other than a language and location.

Nitpick noted. More nitpick :)mrgreen:) We're not talking about Latino's who themselves have a different but semi-shared culture from Hispanics. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom