Latest on Police and Racial Bias

[John Hearne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/sunday-review/race-and-police-shootings-are-blacks-targeted-more.html?_r=1

Probably not what you're expecting:

"In realistic simulations of confrontations, subjects armed with laser-firing pistols acted in ways that left black suspects less likely to be shot at — not more. ... the subjects consistently hesitated longer before firing at black suspects and were much more likely to mistakenly shoot an unarmed white suspect, the researchers found. And when they failed to fire at an armed suspect — a potentially fatal mistake — the suspect was about five times more likely to be black than white."

[TR675]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/sunday-review/race-and-police-shootings-are-blacks-targeted-more.html?_r=1

Probably not what you're expecting:

"In realistic simulations of confrontations, subjects armed with laser-firing pistols acted in ways that left black suspects less likely to be shot at — not more. ... the subjects consistently hesitated longer before firing at black suspects and were much more likely to mistakenly shoot an unarmed white suspect, the researchers found. And when they failed to fire at an armed suspect — a potentially fatal mistake — the suspect was about five times more likely to be black than white."

A rare breath of thinks in the Times editorial page, the great majority of which is occupied by reactionary feels.

[LtDave]

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

[ssb]

I distinctly remember a study (used in a research paper many years ago -- IIRC, the study was from the late 1990s-early 2000s) which came up with the opposite results: a black target, whether a private citizen or plain-clothes LE, and whether armed, unarmed, or holding something that wasn't a weapon, was more likely to be shot by the police officer test subjects. To what extent, I do not recall. I do remember a weird little interactive flash game, and also remember scoring quite well on the "shoot/no-shoot" portion. I believe it was Harvard that put that out.

It's interesting to see a study contradict the widely-held "truth" that LE is more likely to shoot a black suspect than a white suspect. I am curious as to how the studies reached such vastly different results, and would be interested in an examination of that.


“The notion that cops want to shoot anybody is a lot of baloney,” said Dr. Klinger, who has interviewed some 300 officers involved in shootings. “But white officers are much more reticent to shoot a black man than a white man because, all things being equal, they know the social context in which they’re operating.”

By that theory, officers are more careful when confronting black suspects because they know a fatal shooting will open them to controversy.

Do those of you who are LE feel that the bolded is an accurate explanation as to why?

[EM_]

Can't speak to everyone but it's jumped to the front of my brain before in such situations. Ones office climate probably has a lot to do with it.

[jnc36rcpd]

While I suppose there are some LEO's who might be trigger happy when dealing with African-American suspects, I believe the greater threat to the African-American communities is that many officers will avoid assignment to African-American communities, avoid engagement with African-American suspects, and perhaps slow response times to incidents involving African-American suspects in the hope the culprit will escape before the officer arrives.

[Erick Gelhaus]

There is another, older study somewhat related to this topic. Race was not noted as a causal factor, rather action / acting and dress were the two determining factors. What one did and how actively / aggressively they did it as well as whether they were dressed decently or not were far more likely to result in a shooting than other factors.

Cannot recall the name of the author, other than it was a north-east / New England copper who has done a bit of research and writing; not Ayoob.

[Chuck Haggard]

I held off on firing at a young black male one time specifically because he was a young black male, even though he had just shot at my partner and I less than two minutes before with a sawed off 12 gauge. As I got my front sight on target I could see in my mind's eye the headlines in the paper the next day. That this was directly after the Rodney Kind mess didn't help any.

Kid turned out to be 14 years old BTW. Almost exactly one year later I caught him hiding in a bush after doing a person's robbery on the street and running from the po-po (again), he had a .380 laying in the grass next to him and it almost ended badly for him a second time.

[Hambo]

I don't have any empirical data, but my hypothesis is that LE is overly judicious in the use of deadly force. Chuck's story is a great example of thoughts that enter an LEO's shoot-don't shoot process. I've known a fair number of guys who shot suspects, but I've also known a lot that held their fire when they would have been legally justified in shooting.

[runcible]

I don't have any empirical data, but my hypothesis is that LE is overly judicious in the use of deadly force.

Could you elaborate upon how that opinion formed, in the absence of data; please?

Would studies such as that found at: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/june-2012/restraint-in-the-use-of-deadly-force ; influence your opinion?

"CONCLUSION

This preliminary examination of restraint in the use of deadly force established the extent to which a sample number of police officers used restraint throughout their careers. A survey on the use of force found that police officers exercised restraint in deadly force in 93 percent of the situations where they legally could have fired their weapons. This finding sharply contrasts with the public perception of police officers and the use of deadly force.

Documented research on restraint currently is lacking. There were two related issues under which the data found in this article were collected. First, the authors recognized that there exists an idea, created in part by the media, within society that there is excessive and widespread use of deadly force within the law enforcement community. Second, against this social perception, the authors wished to assess the view within a portion of the law enforcement community regarding how they see law enforcement’s use of deadly force. The results of this preliminary review show dramatic differences between the two groups.

Future research is needed that reveals confirmed and validated numbers where law enforcement officers could have used deadly force, but refrained from doing so. Agencies that currently record instances regarding the circumstances where officers have drawn their firearms without firing them can assist in this important research question.

Conceptualizing restraint in terms of the theory of the deadly mix reveals the dynamic nature of restraint in deadly force. In doing so, law enforcement entities can ensure the safety of the officer, the public, and the offender while maintaining order and justice."

This is not the only study on the matter. Some believe that the % of events where DPF is permissible and used, relative to the % of events where DPF is permissible but not used, is optimistically high in this study; or to say it differently, they believe that DPF is used far less then described, even when justified.

[BJJ]

Could you elaborate upon how that opinion formed, in the absence of data; please?

Would studies such as that found at: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/june-2012/restraint-in-the-use-of-deadly-force ; influence your opinion?

"CONCLUSION

This preliminary examination of restraint in the use of deadly force established the extent to which a sample number of police officers used restraint throughout their careers. A survey on the use of force found that police officers exercised restraint in deadly force in 93 percent of the situations where they legally could have fired their weapons. This finding sharply contrasts with the public perception of police officers and the use of deadly force.

Documented research on restraint currently is lacking. There were two related issues under which the data found in this article were collected. First, the authors recognized that there exists an idea, created in part by the media, within society that there is excessive and widespread use of deadly force within the law enforcement community. Second, against this social perception, the authors wished to assess the view within a portion of the law enforcement community regarding how they see law enforcement’s use of deadly force. The results of this preliminary review show dramatic differences between the two groups.

Future research is needed that reveals confirmed and validated numbers where law enforcement officers could have used deadly force, but refrained from doing so. Agencies that currently record instances regarding the circumstances where officers have drawn their firearms without firing them can assist in this important research question.

Conceptualizing restraint in terms of the theory of the deadly mix reveals the dynamic nature of restraint in deadly force. In doing so, law enforcement entities can ensure the safety of the officer, the public, and the offender while maintaining order and justice."

This is not the only study on the matter. Some believe that the % of events where DPF is permissible and used, relative to the % of events where DPF is permissible but not used, is optimistically high in this study; or to say it differently, they believe that DPF is used far less then described, even when justified.

I think you and Hambo are saying the same thing.

[runcible]

Thanks BJJ; my tone wasn't well cultivated. I wasn't sure which sense of the word "judicious" was in play.

[John Hearne]

I realize that this an Anne Coulter editorial, but the study she mentions is fascinating.

Nutshell: After allegations of racial profiling, researchers actually studied the rates of speeding for different racial groups. Finding, blacks sped more than whites, explaining why there were over represented in an earlier study that "found" racial profiling.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-09-03.html#read_more

[Hambo]

Thanks BJJ; my tone wasn't well cultivated. I wasn't sure which sense of the word "judicious" was in play.

I wasn't aware of more than one usage:

JUDICIOUS
adjective
1.
using or showing judgment as to action or practical expediency; discreet, prudent.
2.
having, exercising, or characterized by good or discriminating judgment; wise, sensible, or well-advised.


My hypothesis comes from anecdotal evidence. As I said, I knew plenty of guys who shot suspects, but I often heard officers say that would have been justified in the use of deadly force but chose not to fire, or that they held fire because they didn't believe they were justified. In other words, judicious use of deadly force.

[John Hearne]

Apparently, the study that Coulter references is old, like from 2002. Here's link to a New York Times article on the studies: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/nyregion/study-suggests-racial-gap-in-speeding-in-new-jersey.html

[Erick Gelhaus]

Here are the studies I was thinking of:
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/DeathByDefiance.pdf
http://www.theppsc.org/Research/V3.MMRMA_Deadly_Force_Project.pdf

The previously mentioned FBI Bulletin article and other offerings by that group of authors appears to be quite valid.

[runcible]

"Nothing satisfies like a judicious helping of egg salad."

In literary contexts, it can be synonymous with "heavy-handed" or "heavily." It's one of those "should" vs "is" things.

[cclaxton]

From the OP's NYT's article. The final sentence: "Which studies reflect reality? Hard to say. But perhaps the death of Michael Brown will help researchers find out."
Cody

[MDS]

From the OP's NYT's article. The final sentence: "Which studies reflect reality? Hard to say. But perhaps the death of Michael Brown will help researchers find out."
Cody
Maybe it's hard to say, in the sense that "it's hard to alienate an established readership that has already embraced certain conclusions."

But it's not hard to say, in the sense that "it's not hard to ignore poorly-conducted studies, focus on hard findings from well-conducted studies, and admit frankly when those findings fail to support our pet hypothesis."

I love the idea that MB's suicide-by-cop might force us to a) conduct more high-quality studies; and b) abide by the hard conclusions of those studies. But, ah, that's not what happened - what happened is a bunch of people went off the deep end. I guess I do hope that those people will abide by the cold reason of unbiased research, but that hope flickers ominously.

[cclaxton]

Maybe it's hard to say, in the sense that "it's hard to alienate an established readership that has already embraced certain conclusions."
But it's not hard to say, in the sense that "it's not hard to ignore poorly-conducted studies, focus on hard findings from well-conducted studies, and admit frankly when those findings fail to support our pet hypothesis."
I love the idea that MB's suicide-by-cop might force us to a) conduct more high-quality studies; and b) abide by the hard conclusions of those studies. But, ah, that's not what happened - what happened is a bunch of people went off the deep end. I guess I do hope that those people will abide by the cold reason of unbiased research, but that hope flickers ominously.
The fact that the NYT published an article that challenged the liberal conventional wisdom seems to negate the point you are trying to make about the NYT coddling to their readership.

The whole point of the protests wasn't just about MB...it was protesting the pattern of police behavior that they want to change. Their view is that the pattern has been going on for many years and that MB was just so obviously wrong (although he turned out to be a bad apple, and that makes him a poor martyr for the cause.) Now, I don't know because I don't live there and I don't follow the St. Louis news. But I have seen this pattern play out in other locations, such as Jacksonville, FL, Orlando, FL, and other places. The pattern may be there because that is where there is more lawbreakers and thus...more law enforcement and more lethal encounters. Or it may be due to bias and a jaded attitude by police. I suspect it is a bit of both and will vary by jurisdiction. But to do these studies takes money, which means tax money. To fix these problems takes money, which means taxes. No such thing as free government services...we all pay.

Cody

[MDS]

The fact that the NYT published an article that challenged the liberal conventional wisdom seems to negate the point you are trying to make about the NYT coddling to their readership.

I guess I didn't read the article that way. It struck me as relatively dismissive of simple fact-based information and embracing of vague bad-cop interpretations of ambiguous data. Like I said, we can certainly agree that more well-constructed research would be valuable.

But here's what hurts: why do you think tax-funded research is the best or only option? If a sizeable group of private citizens are intensely worried about systematic abuse of police authority, why don't they get together and fund a study to prove it? Oh, right - they're too busy rioting and stealing and burning and looting and killing and baiting cops and complaining about a militarized response. Maybe they'll find the time and wherewithal after they get done with that...oh, no, I'm wrong again, because why should they pay when they can get the tax payers to pay for the always high-quality government study, and charge the rest of the cost to the national credit card.

[cclaxton]

I guess I didn't read the article that way. It struck me as relatively dismissive of simple fact-based information and embracing of vague bad-cop interpretations of ambiguous data. Like I said, we can certainly agree that more well-constructed research would be valuable.

But here's what hurts: why do you think tax-funded research is the best or only option? If a sizeable group of private citizens are intensely worried about systematic abuse of police authority, why don't they get together and fund a study to prove it? Oh, right - they're too busy rioting and stealing and burning and looting and killing and baiting cops and complaining about a militarized response. Maybe they'll find the time and wherewithal after they get done with that...oh, no, I'm wrong again, because why should they pay when they can get the tax payers to pay for the always high-quality government study, and charge the rest of the cost to the national credit card.

There is nothing stopping private or non-profit groups from conducting studies and doing research. But then the question comes up about what kind of agenda they might have. A study on crime conducted by The Tea Party or the Democratic Party or the Republic Party, or any of their PAC's or affiliated organizations are all going to be suspect....even if they are completely honest. While we can all find bad studies, typically, the best studies are those done by Universities or Professional organizations that are trying to be objective. A study on crime done by the Police Chiefs organization on police brutality is going to be suspect, even if objective. A study by the Ferguson Community against police brutality is going to be suspect, even if objective. Publicly funded organizations attempt to be impartial, after all you have politicians of all political parties looking over their shoulders. it has nothing to do with who wants tax money or who is for or against taxes.

But if I was to choose an organization to do a nationwide study on use of force by police I would use a group within the FBI. In my experience they have been the most professional and the most objective in terms of understanding enforcement and application of the laws and have experience investigating racial bias at the State and Local levels.

Just my opinion.
Cody

[MDS]

A study by the Ferguson Community against police brutality is going to be suspect, even if objective.

Only because they now have a reputation as riotous, bloodthirsty, cop-hating looters. If they'd have gotten together to fund an impartial university study about the larger problem instead of what they actually did, they would have earned quite a different reputation, no?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Objectivity in university studies of politically loaded subjects should not be assumed. This has been documented quite a few times in varous subject areas. Eventually, a bias will be corrected but the dominant paradigm suppresses findings not in accord with the world view of a political agenda for awhile.

There is now a realization of such biases by some and corrections are occurring. The corrections on racial bias and police that John cites have been evolving. Luckily, high quality researchers who found bias in student populations started to honestly test police and found that the situation wasn't the same.

[TinMan]

I don't envy you LEOs in the least when it comes the current status of the whole racial bias issue.

I though we got over racism in 2008...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As in all things, the story is complicated. The studies indicate that a blanket assertion of bias won't hold up. Training seems to be key. While there might be a bias seen in some response measures as reaction time, cognitive control (due to quality training) reduces a bad shoot decision towards minorities. However, perception of risk (as being in an environment where a group is seen as a risk or being in a special team that interacts a great deal with a population seen as a risk) and a high stress incident might interfer with cognitive control and lead to a bad shoot. Thus, intensive and realistic FOF is the corrective training measure. That's what I take from the latest articles.

The problem for a department is whether they engage in such. That would be a legal risk (but I'm no lawyer). For the civilian, such quality training might avoid bad shoots (some studies tend to indicate bias in civilians even when the police in the same study don't show it) - the idiot in the Detroit through the door shoot comes to mind. He didn't want to cower in his house. Such training gives you a perceptual and action gestalt that enables you to handle the situation and have competence without a great deal of panic. In one such personal incident, I felt the gestalt (so to speak) flow into to me and the situation was resolved.

[Shellback]

HARD TRUTH: More Law Enforcement Officers Killed Each Year Than Young Black Men By White Cops. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/shock-report-more-law-enforcement-officers-killed-each-year-than-young-black-men-by-white-cops/)


According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund 682 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in the past five years in the United States. That averages out to over 136 dead law enforcement officers each year.

Here are the numbers:

2010 – 161
2911 – 171
2012 – 126
2013 – 107
2014 – 117

Conversely, on average, there were 96 black males who are killed by white police officers each year – and another 300 white males who are killed by police officers according to FBI statistics.

USA Today reported:

Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI.

On average, there were 96 such incidents among at least 400 police killings each year that were reported to the FBI by local police.

Then there’s this… There were 431 black killers of “whites” in 2014, compared to 193 “white” killers of blacks while blacks make up only 13% of the national population. There were approximately 6,000 black on black murders last year.

Remember this the next time the liberal media or some far left crank tries to persuade you there is an epidemic of black men being slaughtered by white cops.

[Peally]

Going off those statistics the cops are clearly racist against white people. I'm offended, I feel oppressed.

[MDS]

Going off those statistics the cops are clearly racist against white people. I'm offended, I feel oppressed.
Being Hispanic, I'm allowed to be 'white' or 'a minority' so whoever's getting the oppression paycheck, I'm totally in!

[Peally]

Being Hispanic, I'm allowed to be 'white' or 'a minority' so whoever's getting the oppression paycheck, I'm totally in!

You're in the wildcard division, you get to be lumped in wherever it's most convenient :D

[Chuck Haggard]

And my Cherokee half would like all of you white people (white people being everyone not Indian...) to go the fuck home.

[Trooper224]

And my Cherokee half would like all of you white people (white people being everyone not Indian...) to go the fuck home.

But then who would gamble in your casino's?

[Kukuforguns]

HARD TRUTH: More Law Enforcement Officers Killed Each Year Than Young Black Men By White Cops. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/shock-report-more-law-enforcement-officers-killed-each-year-than-young-black-men-by-white-cops/)


I'm not really sure what Irish's point is. The article (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/shock-report-more-law-enforcement-officers-killed-each-year-than-young-black-men-by-white-cops/) he linked (by Gateway Pundit) claims there are more officers killed while on duty (average of 136/year) to young black men killed by white cops (average of 96/year). Gateway Pundit claims the point is that "there is [no] epidemic of black men being slaughtered by white cops."

However, the Gateway Pundit article is open to multiple criticisms. For example, as many/all of the readers of this site know, the number of LEOs killed on duty each year includes many traffic (and other accidental) fatalities. For example, in 2013 (this was the best year since, essentially, ever) 27 officers were feloniously killed (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2013). Why count police officer traffic fatalities and not young, Black male traffic fatalities? Why discuss LEOKA at all if the point is to prove there is no epidemic of police slaughter of young, Black men? The Gateway Pundit article seems to be trying to create the impression that because so many LEOs are killed on duty, the number of young, Black male deaths is reasonable. If this was the intended impression, then Gateway Pundit should have used the number of LEOs feloniously killed on duty.

Second, the Gateway Pundit article completely mangles the numbers. The Gateway Pundit article cited a USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/police-killings-data/14060357/) for the number of young black men killed by white police. The USA Today article stated that 96 Blacks on average were killed by White officers per year. The number of young, Black males was much smaller (approximately 17/year). If the point of the Gateway Pundit article was to create the impression that White police officers rarely kill young, Black men, then the original author failed to comprehend its own source material.

Third, I note that we have very poor information regarding homicides (this word does not connote any criminality) committed by police officers. The USA Today article itself noted that its numbers were based on a database of justifiable homicides reported to the FBI by local police departments and noted that this database "has been long considered flawed and largely incomplete. The killings are self-reported by law enforcement and not all police departments participate so the database undercounts the actual number of deaths." A more complete source for the number of people killed by police can be found at http://killedbypolice.net/ This source (crowd sourced based on news reports) indicates that more than 100 black males (not all young) have been killed so far this year by police officers (potentially many more since there is no information on race for many of the decedents).

So, the Gateway Pundit article is remarkable only for how poorly it was written and how poorly it considered/researched the issue.

[Chuck Haggard]

Even with the 100 number, we are talking a nation of 313+ million people. Homicide by the police, regardless of race of the person shot/killed, is actually a rare thing considering. This disregards that fact that the vast majority of people killed by the police are killed under clearly justified circumstances.

[Kukuforguns]

Even with the 100 number, we are talking a nation of 313+ million people. Homicide by the police, regardless of race of the person shot/killed, is actually a rare thing considering. This disregards that fact that the vast majority of people killed by the police are killed under clearly justified circumstances.

My point was not that there is an epidemic of police killing. I hate hack journalism. The issue is important and Gateway Pundit spent maybe 2 minutes researching the issue.

With respect to the 100 number, this was only for Black males who make up around 1/12 of the 313 million in the U.S.

So far this year police have killed 398 people. Last year police killed roughly 1100 people (http://www.killedbypolice.net/kbp2014.html). With a population of 313,000,000 that comes to a homicide rate of .35 people killed by police per 100,000 people ((1,100*100,000)/313,000,000). With approximately 900,000 (2008 numbers of federal (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo08.pdf) and state/local (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf)) sworn LEOs in the U.S., the felonious killing of 27 police officers in 2013 reflects a homicide rate of about 3 police per 100,000 police ((27*100,000)/900,000). So, genpop kills police roughly at a rate roughly nine times more often than police kill genpop. This certainly doesn't look like a police slaughter.

I also note that even justified killings can be regrettable/unnecessary. For example, Tamir Rice was not actually a threat to anyone. John Crawford III is another recent example. In both cases, the respective police departments contend that the killing was justified. What we're having now is a national dialogue about how many justifiable, but unnecessary, police killings we are willing to accept as collateral damage. Of course, no one wants to describe the conversation in such stark terms. Having a dialogue is great. It helps when it's an honest dialogue, which is what irritated me about the Gateway Pundit article.

[Chuck Haggard]

Concur ref hack news stories and what passes for research nowadays.


Concur that regrettable killings happen, but then going full bore/under the microscope/20/20 hindsight is also not the way these needs to be looked at, outside of possible AAR/training/lessons learned.

[Kukuforguns]

In a nation with a free press, I don't see any way to avoid microscopic review. These stories are sensational and they are click magnets. Eventually the press coverage will lead to desensitization and we'll get a different crisis that will be covered endlessly. Oops. Time to take my optimism pill. Ahh, better. The news saturation is not all bad. Some small percentage of people will make the effort to actually learn something.

[Shellback]

I'm not really sure what Irish's point is... So, the Gateway Pundit article is remarkable only for how poorly it was written and how poorly it considered/researched the issue.

I'd assumed the numbers were more concrete than what they are, apparently. I didn't have the time or inclination to check sources.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[Kukuforguns]

I'd assumed the numbers were more concrete than what they are, apparently. I didn't have the time or inclination to check sources.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.Which is why I get so annoyed with hack journalism. It's designed to persuade by creating the impression of research, but the author can't be bothered doing the actual research. I tried to aim my criticism at the author and hope none splashed your way.

[Shellback]

I tried to aim my criticism at the author and hope none splashed your way.

No offense taken. My "thanks" was genuine. :)