Pages

December 16, 2014

Study On How Likely Cops Are To Shoot Unarmed White Vs Black Suspects Has Surprising Conclusion

With the turmoil in Ferguson activists and the mainstream media would have us believe that police officers are “trigger happy” when dealing with black suspects. The truth couldn’t be more different. 
But a scientific study from Washington State University-Spokane suggests just the opposite. In truth, according to findings from the research team’s innovative experiments:
• Officers were less likely to erroneously shoot unarmed black suspects than they were unarmed whites — 25 times less likely, in fact
• And officers hesitated significantly longer before shooting armed suspects who were black, compared to armed subjects who were white or Hispanic
“In sum,” writes Dr. Lois James, a research assistant professor with the university’s Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology who headed the study, “this research found that participants displayed significant bias favoring Black suspects” in their shooting decisions.

Given the media driven narrative that cops are unduly harsh toward black suspects, the researchers acknowledges that the outcome was “unexpected.

Findings reveal that officers took “significantly longer” before they shot black suspects than white suspects. Civilians and soldiers in the study also took longer to shoot blacks, but the hesitation by officers was roughly twice as long as that of the civilians. The delay before shooting was particularly noticeable in the most complex scenarios.
In contrast, there was “no significant difference in reaction time between shooting Hispanic suspects and White suspects,” James reports.
“Our primary finding that participants were more hesitant to shoot Black suspects than White or Hispanic suspects is in direct contrast to prior experimental findings that participants are significantly quicker to shoot Black suspects,” she writes.
• Decision errors. Where officers made errors in James’s study, they were “less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects,” she writes. Indeed, “we calculated that participants were 25 times less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than they were to shoot unarmed White suspects.” Again, this was a significantly greater multiple than was recorded for other groups in the study.
Unarmed suspects were most likely to be shot in journeyman scenarios (the most difficult), and there was “no significant difference between the likelihood of shooting unarmed Hispanic suspects and unarmed White suspects,” the researchers found.

Moreover, the officers did not fail to shoot armed white suspects any more frequently than they failed to shoot threatening suspects who were black or Hispanic.
“These findings are also in direct contrast to [earlier researchers] who found that participants were more likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects and fail to shoot armed White suspects,” James noted.


Source:http://www.policeone.com 

21 comments:

  1. This fails to take into account that We don't really know how many People are shot and killed by the Cops. We can't, because they aren't required to keep such records, and they aren't trying to. Let alone accurately report to the FBI."In truth" you need to have REAL ACCURATE information. Before coming to such conclusions. That is the TRUTH.
    Why isn't this finding reflected in REAL TIME/LIFE? Another Study where facts were fit to findings!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Divide and conquer. Everyone thinks they are the victim. We are all victims of a parasitic infestation. Until they are gone, nothing will be good. How far down the hole does ths all go? Look for yourself, trust no source, just take it in and feel what is real.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd like to read the study and know what data was included, since the numbers on police shooting citizens are not collected officially by the FBI; it's self-reported, voluntarily, by police and sheriff offices. A citizen website has amassed 1000 casualties shot by police in 2013; if most of them are white, that would give credence to this study.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So white people need to sue for discriminatory practices right? This shows that whites aren't being given equal protection, and that some misguided sense of political correctness is leading police to think it's acceptable to brutalize whites without thinking while they wouldn't dare do the same to blacks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Most violent criminals aren't white, despite the fact that whites make up the majority of the population, so just a simple review of "most" casualties wouldn't give you the information you're looking for (they could still have most of the shooting casualties be blacks shot during appropriate uses of force while having a smaller percentage of white shooting casualties that's still several times larger than it should be.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you go to the original source it shows this is based on a experiment and not on any facts. It was a study on how police, civilian, and military reacts in a simulated environment. The real issue is, and why people are protesting, is white officers not be indicted for shooting unarmed black men and the militarization of local police departments. Articles like this one is nothing but a red herring to divert attention from the real problem.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Most violent criminals aren't white"
    where is your evidence to corroborate this claim? And how low are we setting the bar for "violent"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You may be correct to decry the failure to keep accurate statistics on police killings, however you've missed a key part of this story: "In truth, according to findings from the research team’s innovative experiments" In other words, the reaction times (which would be impossible to measure in a street situation anyway) were taken in a lab, probably from video game-type screen projections. Note, too, that these findings are from the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, the people who are training our future police -- hardly a hotbed of cop-bashing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I find little "TRUTH" in their findings if they don't have complete and accurate statistics in the first place. Also, using a simulation changes peoples responses because they know they are being Watched/Observed.
    Just like when Body cams are required for Cops , complaints against them go down. Why? They are being watched. Same goes for this experiment. Oh, as you pointed out, "consider the source"! Do they gain from this report?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1) Violent crime here is defined by the FBIs definition, which isn’t very low at all (‘Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.’, source: the FBI in their own crime statistics)

    2) “Whites” (within which the FBI includes mestizo hispanics, who are not actually white) committed 243928 of the 410608 violent crimes in 2011 (source, the FBI, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43 ), which, using the FBI’s (fake) definition of “white” would mean that “white” people 59.4% of violent crime…

    … However since:

    3) Hispanics make up 17.1% of U.S. population (source: U.S. census bureau)

    4) Whites (not hispanic or latino) make up 62.6% of the U.S. population (source: U.S. census bureau)

    … So, even assuming equal rates of violent crimes between whites and mestizo hispanics (which isn’t the case) would mean that 26.9% of that 59.4% “white” violent crime is actually hispanic/mestizo (you have to subtract out 16% from that 59.4% of the FBI’s “white” violent crime that’s actually committed by non-white mestizos) which means that only 43.4% of violent crime is committed by white people…

    5) Since less than half is committed by white people, by definition that means that most violent crime is committed by people who aren’t white.

    … However it is actually even worse than that, since:

    6) Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate (source: The Color of Crime, Race, Crime, and Justice in America — Second, Expanded Edition, 2005)

    … If that source is too “real” for you, then:

    7) the Violence Policy Center’s research puts the hispanic murder rate at twice that of white americans (source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/hispanic.pdf )

    … So, to be conservative we’ll use the murder rate of 2x, rather than the violent crime rate of ~3x, even though reality is that hispanics appear to commit violent crime at closer to 3x the rate rather than 2x…

    … This means of that

    hispanic percentage of violent crime / total “white” percentage of violent crime =

    (.171 [hispanic population percent] * 2 [for twice the rate of white violent crime]) / (.171 [hispanic population percent] * 2 [for twice the rate of white violent crime] + .626 [white population percent] * 1 [the relative rate of white violent crime]) =

    .342 / .968 = .353…

    … Which tells us that 35.3% (not the 26.9% we’d calculated earlier assuming hispanic and white violent crime rates were the same) of the 59.4% of “white” violent crime is actually hispanic/mestizo…

    … So since 35.3% of 59.4% equals 21.0%, subtracting this 21.0% of hispanic/mestizo violent crime out from the 59.4% of “white” violent crime leaves only 38.4% of violent crime being committed by people who are actually white.

    So, if white people only commit 38.4% of violent crime in this country, this means that people who are not white commit the remaining 61.6% of violent crime, despite the fact that they only make up 37.4% of the population.

    It’s an uncomfortable reality but that doesn’t make it any less true. People, either as groups, or as individuals, are most definitely not equal.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What 'study'? My statistic didn't rely on anything but FBI and census statistics... No 'studies' to attack here, and the imprecision of their fake definition of 'white' only argues in my favor...

    No, most Hispanics in the U.S. aren't white, per white people and any other person who isn't a liar, and as evidenced by the fact that the FBI is fixing their statistics to separate out mestizo Hispanics (whom are about 2/3rds native americab and black.)

    If you truly believe that someone who is 2/3rds Native American and who has brown skin is white you are deluding yourself as much as they are when they checked the 'white' race box (they are apparently a race of people who don't even know what their race is, or maybe it's just wishful thinking.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Honestly, Folks like you, who are so focused on race classifications. Tend to blinded by the Pointy Hat and Bed sheets they wear. Just saying'.
    And MOST Violent People of this Planet are WHITE. Sorry. If not being violent, then inciting others to violence. Then stepping back and watching for their own interests and profit. Ukraine, El Salvador, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea n/s, Africa, New World Inhabitants etc. Mostly for Personal, then Corporate profits! It is what it is!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nobody is "focused" on race classifications. Race is an imperfect / imprecise construct of which most of the real world ramifications are only observed in aggregate. Nonetheless, humans beings aren't all equal, either as individuals or as groups, there are differences between them. Some kinds of people just aren't as good as others for the purpose of making a functional free society. This is a fact. It's sad but it's true.


    Everyone else in the world is allowed to say this out loud other than white people which is utter hypocrisy.


    White people can be violent, but as individuals are some of the least violent people in the world. It's not that whites are particularly violent, we're just better at it when we are (as we are better at almost everything.)


    Yes, corporate profits are not a legitimate objective of military force. Most Americans (white or otherwise) would agree with this statement. The fact is though that white Americans haven't run our country in over 50 years.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cry me a River with your White Privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You say "White Privilege" like it's a bad thing. I'm damned lucky to have my white privilege. I didn't have any control over where and to whom I was born but I'm quite happy with my deal of the genetic cards.


    Our "White Privilege" has been fought for, built, and earned by the ancestors of every white person whose alive today, by those who suffered the hardships, deprivation, and cold of our homeland over thousands of years to evolve the genes we carry today, and by those who have conquered and built the most successful cultures, nations, and economies the world has ever seen.


    "White Privilege" is our birthright and is nothing to be ashamed of and in-fact should be strenuously defended by those who have it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Your kind"? Says a lot more about you then me. And it's not good.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yeah, the kind of person who believes that since it's not possible to pull everyone "up" you instead settle for pulling everyone else down... Which was pretty obvious because that's exactly what I said.

    You're also clearly paranoid about any kind of thought process that treats any people as anything but the absolutely special unique individual snowflakes you believe they are or that openly applies any of the aggregation and categorization type functions that are near ubiquitous in human cognition and that allow us to get anything useful done.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You have made a very apt description of yourself. Not me. I can't pull anyone up or down as I'm not on Top. I, like most people in this World. Am happy to be alive and well, while treating others with respect and dignity. You are/sound like the proverbial the "Crab in a Barrel". Can't help , so you hold others back so you have company. Sad! TTFN!

    ReplyDelete
  19. You live in the U.S. right, or some other western nation? That puts you on top whether you admit it or not.


    If someone has to be on top I'd rather it be me, and if it can't be me it should be those who will build a better future for everyone here. Unlike a liberal if I can't achieve it I won't push for policies that obliterate borders and disintegrate every advantage our ancestors starved, suffered, froze, fought, and died to give us.


    I'm fine with live and let live. They just don't have to do it in my back yard. (Nor should we be dealing with their natural resources, dictators, and drug lords either.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. I wasn't trying to pull anyone down. I was trying to get you out of your Pointy Hat and Bed sheet costume. See the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  21. So you admit it. You were trying to insult me by association by implying that I'm a Klan member. You were also trying to impose your sick sense of morality on me because apparently you feel that a white person advocating up for their own racial interests must be an intolerant bigot. Do you know what that makes you? An intolerant bigot.

    ReplyDelete