Study Reveals Genuine Racial Bias: Police Far More Likely To

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

...Shoot White Suspects.  The study revealed that police don't want to shoot anybody, but in spite of feeling more threatened by black suspects, they're much slower on the trigger when the suspect is black.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/

[Virgil Showlion]

Interesting. One wonders how true to life the results of the study are.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 7, 2015 7:57:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Interesting. One wonders how true to life the results of the study are.

Seems rather intuitive to me. The police don't live under a rock.  They see how the lives of police officers are turned upside down by the violent racialists, anarchists, and how quickly and willingly the liberal establishment, and the irresponsible state media pick up the narrative of such people.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 7, 2015 8:02:01 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 7, 2015 7:57:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Interesting. One wonders how true to life the results of the study are.

Seems rather intuitive to me. The police don't live under a rock.  They see how the lives of police officers are turned upside down by the violent racialists, anarchists, and how quickly and willingly the liberal establishment, and the irresponsible state media pick up the narrative of such people.

I have to admit that Mr. Sharpton and his growing army of followers consistently appear as though they couldn't care less about the circumstances of a shooting.

Having said that, if police are overly trigger happy in general, the fact that they're at least thinking twice when it comes to blacks isn't altogether a bad thing. It's still fewer bodies overall.

[resolution]

Here is some information about the study. I find it interesting that the headline is all about the police but the study participants were from the general public and none of them were police.

news.wsu.edu/2014/09/02/deadly-force-lab-finds-racial-disparities-in-shootings/#.VK02gGc5DVg

However, the current study only measured the alpha waves of participants drawn from the general public, not law enforcement or the military. Consequently, wrote the authors, “results from this sample are not generalizable to sworn officers.”

“However,” they added, “there is some evidence from the field to support the proposition that an officer’s threat bias could cause him or her to tend to take more time to make decisions to shoot people whom they subconsciously perceived as more threatening because of race or ethnicity. This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group.”

[Tennesseer]

When confronted by an armed white person, participants took an average of 1.37 seconds to fire back. Confronted by an armed black person, they took 1.61 seconds to fire and were less likely to fire in error. The 240-millisecond difference may seem small, but it’s enough to be fatal in a shooting.

‘Deadly force’ lab finds racial disparities in shootings

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 7, 2015 8:43:44 GMT -5 resolution said:

Here is some information about the study. I find it interesting that the headline is all about the police but the study participants were from the general public and none of them were police.

news.wsu.edu/2014/09/02/deadly-force-lab-finds-racial-disparities-in-shootings/#.VK02gGc5DVg

However, the current study only measured the alpha waves of participants drawn from the general public, not law enforcement or the military. Consequently, wrote the authors, “results from this sample are not generalizable to sworn officers.”

“However,” they added, “there is some evidence from the field to support the proposition that an officer’s threat bias could cause him or her to tend to take more time to make decisions to shoot people whom they subconsciously perceived as more threatening because of race or ethnicity. This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group.”

From your link:

...the last comprehensive look at the racial makeup of justifiable and non-justifiable shootings was a 2001 study (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ph98.pdf) using more than two decades of U.S. Bureau of Justice data, said James. And while statistics show black suspects are shot at more frequently than white suspects, the 2001 study found black suspects were also as likely to shoot at police as be shot at.

...

James’ study is a follow-up to one in which she found active police officers, military personnel and the general public took longer to shoot black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects. Participants were also more likely to shoot unarmed white suspects than black or Hispanic ones and more likely to fail to fire at armed black suspects.
“In other words,” wrote James and her co-authors, “there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned.”

[djAdvocate]

Jan 7, 2015 7:47:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...Shoot White Suspects.  The study revealed that police don't want to shoot anybody, but in spite of feeling more threatened by black suspects, they're much slower on the trigger when the suspect is black.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/

good.  now all we need is better sentencing when "mistakes" happen.

[Angel!]

So non-police in a simulation were less likely to shoot black people.  Police when asked felt there were slower to shoot black people.  The problem is those are all not what actually happens in a high anxiety situation when you heart is racing & you just react.  

You should read the book Blink.  It does a pretty in depth analysis on why these shootings happen & also why incidents like Rodney King occur.  Basically most of us have a racial bias.  You can actually take bias tests at this website implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ .  When we are thinking, we often counteract that bias.  When are heart is racing & things are happening, that part of the brain doesn't have much input anymore.  They have shown through training & avoiding certain situations (high speed chases), they can keep officers from getting to the point where that part of the brain shuts down & such shootings (or beatings) are much less likely to happen.

I don't remember everything the book talked about, but it was fascinating.  I didn't realize Rodney King was beaten at the end of a high speed chase & that a significant number of police brutality cases happen after a high speed chase, so much so that many areas forbid officers from entering them now.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 7, 2015 13:43:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 7, 2015 7:47:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...Shoot White Suspects.  The study revealed that police don't want to shoot anybody, but in spite of feeling more threatened by black suspects, they're much slower on the trigger when the suspect is black.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/

good.  now all we need is better sentencing when "mistakes" happen.

I'm curious. If the quoted text read "The study revealed that police don't want to shoot anybody, but in spite of feeling less threatened by white suspects, they're much quicker on the trigger when the suspect is white.", which I'll point out is 100% logically equivalent to the original phrasing (specifically, the contrapositive), would your response be the same?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 7, 2015 14:30:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 7, 2015 13:43:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

good.  now all we need is better sentencing when "mistakes" happen.

I'm curious. If the quoted text read "The study revealed that police don't want to shoot anybody, but in spite of feeling less threatened by white suspects, they're much quicker on the trigger when the suspect is white.", which I'll point out is 100% logically equivalent to the original phrasing (specifically, the contrapositive), would your response be the same?

yep.  any reason it shouldn't?

[EVT1]

Try it yourself:

www.csun.edu/~dma/FPST/consent.html

     Joshua Correll, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder, developed a web-based game that puts the player in the role of a police officer who randomly encounters a series of black and white men -- some armed and some holding objects like wallets, cellphones, and Slurpees (but holding them aggressively). The player is then given a short amount of time to decide whether or not to shoot

     You already can guess the result. When presented with a black subject, players had a much itchier trigger finger -- even if the object held by said subject was something decidedly nonlethal, like a Slurpee (which, to be fair, is apparently something you can hijack a plane with, according to the TSA). By contrast, they took much longer to decide whether the white subjects presented an immediate danger, even when the subject was obviously holding a handgun. Now, here's the kicker: results were similar across the board, regardless of whether the player was white, black, young, or old enough to be Marge Schott's bridge partner.

Read more: www.cracked.com/article_21822_5-studies-that-prove-racism-still-way-worse-than-we-think.html#ixzz3OAT8Dpqg

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 7, 2015 13:43:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 7, 2015 7:47:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...Shoot White Suspects.  The study revealed that police don't want to shoot anybody, but in spite of feeling more threatened by black suspects, they're much slower on the trigger when the suspect is black.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/

good.  now all we need is better sentencing when "mistakes" happen.

I definitely think the police need to face at the very least civil liability when their actions to apprehend suspects- particularly in non-violent crime situations- go awry.  Think about the "high speed chase".

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 7, 2015 14:04:44 GMT -5 Angel! said:

So non-police in a simulation were less likely to shoot black people.  Police when asked felt there were slower to shoot black people.  The problem is those are all not what actually happens in a high anxiety situation when you heart is racing & you just react.  

It had already been established that active police officers, military personnel, and the general public took longer to shoot black suspects: 

James’ study is a follow-up to one in which she found active police officers, military personnel and the general public took longer to shoot black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects. Participants were also more likely to shoot unarmed white suspects than black or Hispanic ones and more likely to fail to fire at armed black suspects.
“In other words,” wrote James and her co-authors, “there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned.”

Note this is the second time this assertion has been corrected.

You should read the book Blink.  It does a pretty in depth analysis on why these shootings happen & also why incidents like Rodney King occur.  Basically most of us have a racial bias.  You can actually take bias tests at this website implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ .  When we are thinking, we often counteract that bias.  When are heart is racing & things are happening, that part of the brain doesn't have much input anymore.  They have shown through training & avoiding certain situations (high speed chases), they can keep officers from getting to the point where that part of the brain shuts down & such shootings (or beatings) are much less likely to happen.

I don't remember everything the book talked about, but it was fascinating.  I didn't realize Rodney King was beaten at the end of a high speed chase & that a significant number of police brutality cases happen after a high speed chase, so much so that many areas forbid officers from entering them now.

For the record, I have read the book, Blink!  I'm not denying that all of us- including black people- have racial bias.  We have all sorts of biases.  The point is that the racial bias may actually lead people to make decisions that are counterintuitive.  

[Angel!]

Jan 7, 2015 15:22:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 7, 2015 14:04:44 GMT -5 Angel! said:

So non-police in a simulation were less likely to shoot black people.  Police when asked felt there were slower to shoot black people.  The problem is those are all not what actually happens in a high anxiety situation when you heart is racing & you just react.  

It had already been established that active police officers, military personnel, and the general public took longer to shoot black suspects: 

Note this is the second time this assertion has been corrected.

You should read the book Blink.  It does a pretty in depth analysis on why these shootings happen & also why incidents like Rodney King occur.  Basically most of us have a racial bias.  You can actually take bias tests at this website implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ .  When we are thinking, we often counteract that bias.  When are heart is racing & things are happening, that part of the brain doesn't have much input anymore.  They have shown through training & avoiding certain situations (high speed chases), they can keep officers from getting to the point where that part of the brain shuts down & such shootings (or beatings) are much less likely to happen.

I don't remember everything the book talked about, but it was fascinating.  I didn't realize Rodney King was beaten at the end of a high speed chase & that a significant number of police brutality cases happen after a high speed chase, so much so that many areas forbid officers from entering them now.

For the record, I have read the book, Blink!  I'm not denying that all of us- including black people- have racial bias.  We have all sorts of biases.  The point is that the racial bias may actually lead people to make decisions that are counterintuitive.  

In a lab.  My point is a lab setting isn't going to create the same anxiety and heart racing effect that is experience as real life.  And it is the heart racing, adrenaline rush that cause the part of the brain that creates the counterintuitive experience to shut down.  So while that may happen in a lab, that is no indication that it happens IRL.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 7, 2015 14:36:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 7, 2015 14:30:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm curious. If the quoted text read "The study revealed that police don't want to shoot anybody, but in spite of feeling less threatened by white suspects, they're much quicker on the trigger when the suspect is white.", which I'll point out is 100% logically equivalent to the original phrasing (specifically, the contrapositive), would your response be the same?

yep.  any reason it shouldn't?

Because cops blowing away white people isn't a 'good' thing?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 7, 2015 15:01:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Try it yourself:

www.csun.edu/~dma/FPST/consent.html

     Joshua Correll, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder, developed a web-based game that puts the player in the role of a police officer who randomly encounters a series of black and white men -- some armed and some holding objects like wallets, cellphones, and Slurpees (but holding them aggressively). The player is then given a short amount of time to decide whether or not to shoot

     You already can guess the result. When presented with a black subject, players [Players? What kind of players? White, black, hispanic, white hispanic, asian, arab?  A good guess would be that the racial biases were equal across all players of all races] had a much itchier trigger finger -- even if the object held by said subject was something decidedly nonlethal, like a Slurpee (which, to be fair, is apparently something you can hijack a plane with, according to the TSA). By contrast, they took much longer to decide whether the white subjects presented an immediate danger, even when the subject was obviously holding a handgun. Now, here's the kicker: results were similar across the board, regardless of whether the player was white, black, young, or old enough to be Marge Schott's bridge partner.

Read more: www.cracked.com/article_21822_5-studies-that-prove-racism-still-way-worse-than-we-think.html#ixzz3OAT8Dpqg

And to be absolutely fair and unbiased- a black suspect is, by the numbers, far more likely to be a threat than a white suspect.  Those are the odds. 

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics ( www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf ), black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white. 

In 2013 US Census Bureau ( quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html ) estimated 45,003,665 African Americans in the United States meaning that 14.1% of the total American population of 316.1 Million is Black. This includes those who identify as 'Black Only' and as 'Black in combination with another race'. 

Let me put it in terms that you might be able to understand: how would you feel if you were part of 14% of the company staff, and your group did 52% of the work?  You'd probably feel worthy of more attention, would you not?  And that's just what black suspects get. Doesn't mean they're individually guilty. I would not presume to make the case that it doesn't suck to be black when dealing with the police.  But it does make the issue at least explainable.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 7, 2015 15:01:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Try it yourself:

www.csun.edu/~dma/FPST/consent.html

     Joshua Correll, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder, developed a web-based game that puts the player in the role of a police officer who randomly encounters a series of black and white men -- some armed and some holding objects like wallets, cellphones, and Slurpees (but holding them aggressively). The player is then given a short amount of time to decide whether or not to shoot

     You already can guess the result. When presented with a black subject, players had a much itchier trigger finger -- even if the object held by said subject was something decidedly nonlethal, like a Slurpee (which, to be fair, is apparently something you can hijack a plane with, according to the TSA). By contrast, they took much longer to decide whether the white subjects presented an immediate danger, even when the subject was obviously holding a handgun. Now, here's the kicker: results were similar across the board, regardless of whether the player was white, black, young, or old enough to be Marge Schott's bridge partner.

Read more: www.cracked.com/article_21822_5-studies-that-prove-racism-still-way-worse-than-we-think.html#ixzz3OAT8Dpqg

DJ, help me out here. Is this 'good' too?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 7, 2015 15:45:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 7, 2015 14:36:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yep.  any reason it shouldn't?

Because cops blowing away white people isn't a 'good' thing?

didn't you presume that would qualify as a "mistake"?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 7, 2015 15:47:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 7, 2015 15:01:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Try it yourself:

www.csun.edu/~dma/FPST/consent.html

     Joshua Correll, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder, developed a web-based game that puts the player in the role of a police officer who randomly encounters a series of black and white men -- some armed and some holding objects like wallets, cellphones, and Slurpees (but holding them aggressively). The player is then given a short amount of time to decide whether or not to shoot

     You already can guess the result. When presented with a black subject, players had a much itchier trigger finger -- even if the object held by said subject was something decidedly nonlethal, like a Slurpee (which, to be fair, is apparently something you can hijack a plane with, according to the TSA). By contrast, they took much longer to decide whether the white subjects presented an immediate danger, even when the subject was obviously holding a handgun. Now, here's the kicker: results were similar across the board, regardless of whether the player was white, black, young, or old enough to be Marge Schott's bridge partner.

Read more: www.cracked.com/article_21822_5-studies-that-prove-racism-still-way-worse-than-we-think.html#ixzz3OAT8Dpqg

DJ, help me out here. Is this 'good' too?

Virgil- THIS is what i said was "GOOD":

...Shoot White Suspects. The study revealed that police don't want to shoot anybody, but in spite of feeling more threatened by black suspects, they're much slower on the trigger when the suspect is black.

1) the police don't want to shoot anybody
2) they are slower on the trigger when the suspect is black.

i said GOOD to that.  i see nothing WRONG with that.  if they take another 240ms to assess the situation with a black person, that's fine.  what i said immediately after that is that if they use that 240ms wisely, they won't make as many mistakes, and therefore, if we punish the MISTAKES, then it really doesn't matter if they take an extra 240ms or a month and a half, so long as the RESULTS are improved, that is GOOD.

you jump to a lot of conclusions, rather than asking questions.  it is a new year.  time for some resolutions, maybe?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 7, 2015 18:38:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 7, 2015 15:45:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Because cops blowing away white people isn't a 'good' thing?

didn't you presume that would qualify as a "mistake"?

To me, 'good' would be an article saying "police shootings are down". This one doesn't.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 7, 2015 18:46:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 7, 2015 18:38:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

didn't you presume that would qualify as a "mistake"?

To me, 'good' would be an article saying "police shootings are down". This one doesn't.

the only thing i was saying was "good" was what i quoted.

if i said "i read the article, and i thought it was AWESOME.  GO BLUE!!!", then you could conclude i was all for what the article said.  i wasn't.

i quoted something i thought was GOOD.  i said it was GOOD.  and i said that any MISTAKES should be punished.
do you find ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 7, 2015 18:44:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 7, 2015 15:47:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

DJ, help me out here. Is this 'good' too?

Virgil- THIS is what i said was "GOOD":

...Shoot White Suspects. The study revealed that police don't want to shoot anybody, but in spite of feeling more threatened by black suspects, they're much slower on the trigger when the suspect is black.

1) the police don't want to shoot anybody
2) they are slower on the trigger when the suspect is black.

i said GOOD to that.  i see nothing WRONG with that.  if they take another 240ms to assess the situation with a black person, that's fine.  what i said immediately after that is that if they use that 240ms wisely, they won't make as many mistakes, and therefore, if we punish the MISTAKES, then it really doesn't matter if they take an extra 240ms or a month and a half, so long as the RESULTS are improved, that is GOOD.

you jump to a lot of conclusions, rather than asking questions.  it is a new year.  time for some resolutions, maybe?

How do you know they're not taking 240ms less to assess the situation with white people? Or some combination of the two.

The "racial quota" mentality works both ways. A police force wants to be able to say, "Look, we shoot just as many white people as black people."  In the spur of the moment, who's to say what's running through a police officer's mind isn't "Oh. White sleazebag. No problem if I shoot him; it will improve our ratio."

If your 'good' was limited to the comment about police officers not wanting to shoot people, then I agree with you. But "We really don't want to shoot people." is about as boilerplate as police responses get.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 7, 2015 18:49:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 7, 2015 18:46:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

To me, 'good' would be an article saying "police shootings are down". This one doesn't.

the only thing i was saying was "good" was what i quoted.

if i said "i read the article, and i thought it was AWESOME.  GO BLUE!!!", then you could conclude i was all for what the article said.  i wasn't.

i quoted something i thought was GOOD.  i said it was GOOD.  and i said that any MISTAKES should be punished.
do you find ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT?

I just think you're assuming things that may not be true. See my above response.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 7, 2015 18:51:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 7, 2015 18:44:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil- THIS is what i said was "GOOD":

...Shoot White Suspects. The study revealed that police don't want to shoot anybody, but in spite of feeling more threatened by black suspects, they're much slower on the trigger when the suspect is black.

1) the police don't want to shoot anybody
2) they are slower on the trigger when the suspect is black.

i said GOOD to that.  i see nothing WRONG with that.  if they take another 240ms to assess the situation with a black person, that's fine.  what i said immediately after that is that if they use that 240ms wisely, they won't make as many mistakes, and therefore, if we punish the MISTAKES, then it really doesn't matter if they take an extra 240ms or a month and a half, so long as the RESULTS are improved, that is GOOD.

you jump to a lot of conclusions, rather than asking questions.  it is a new year.  time for some resolutions, maybe?

How do you know they're not taking 240ms less to assess the situation with white people? Or some combination of the two.

The "racial quota" mentality works both ways. A police force wants to be able to say, "Look, we shoot just as many white people as black people."  In the spur of the moment, who's to say what's running through a police officer's mind isn't "Oh. White sleazebag. No problem if I shoot him; it will improve our ratio."

If your 'good' was limited to the comment about police officers not wanting to shoot people, then I agree with you. But "We really don't want to shoot people." is about as boilerplate as police responses get.

1) post 5
2) i didn't assume any quota's
3) i said "good" to what i quoted.  period.  i didn't read the article.  if you want me to explain WHY i didn't read it, i will do so on PM, but not here.

[EVT1]

Just for an injection of real life situations- Wilson had more than 240ms to decide, the cops that killed the man in Walmart with a bb gun had more than 240ms, the cops that killed the kid with the toy gun had more than 240ms to make up their minds whether to pull the trigger or not.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 7, 2015 19:21:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 7, 2015 18:51:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

How do you know they're not taking 240ms less to assess the situation with white people? Or some combination of the two.

The "racial quota" mentality works both ways. A police force wants to be able to say, "Look, we shoot just as many white people as black people."  In the spur of the moment, who's to say what's running through a police officer's mind isn't "Oh. White sleazebag. No problem if I shoot him; it will improve our ratio."

If your 'good' was limited to the comment about police officers not wanting to shoot people, then I agree with you. But "We really don't want to shoot people." is about as boilerplate as police responses get.

1) post 5
2) i didn't assume any quota's
3) i said "good" to what i quoted.  period.  i didn't read the article.  if you want me to explain WHY i didn't read it, i will do so on PM, but not here.

1) Post five is yet another relative comparison. Moreover, the experiment doesn't lend itself to your conclusion. If worrying about the consequences of shooting a black man versus a white man genuinely affects reaction times, why would we expect to observe them in a simulation where there are no consequences to accidentally shooting an unarmed man?

I'll bet you that if we dug down into the experiment, the 240 milliseconds would be a combination of statistical error and extraneous factors such as white people being easier to see in the simulation.

2. I'm saying that if quotas exist, upping the denominator is just as good as lowering the numerator when it comes to lowering an embarrassing ratio.

3. OK. I believe you.