Hacker News Reader

Comment by evolve2017 | Hacker News Reader

evolve2017

I find this very curious - why do you think this movement came to attention if the killings are rare?

Also, your comment implies that there's an acceptable number of police killings of unarmed/fleeing suspects - what would you say that number is in your country?

View on HN

One possible explanation is that's what the accepted narrative is based on media coverage. Also you have to get a bit specific when you consider what kind of killings are rare. US Police shoot and kill quite a few people to be sure. But statistically, shooting of unarmed black males is less than 4% of fatal police shootings.

> "A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evi...

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf

> "The conventional thinking about police-involved shootings, and some scientific research, has been that black suspects are more likely to be shot than white suspects because of an implicit racial bias among police officers. But now a new study has found exactly the opposite: even with white officers who do have racial biases, officers are three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27...

I remember seeing this result. It's tantalizing but - and in the absence of mandated reporting perhaps the best we may have. I will take a look at the paper but I wonder what biases exist in officer-initiated reporting.

Lastly, we're setting a low bar if our standard for police mistreatment is killing as opposed to inappropriate behavior, writ large.

I do see your point, but I'm not sure this data undercuts the importance of a movement like BLM.

EDIT: For the second link, I'm not sure how much I believe a psychology experiment in this setting - I don't know this literature but my a priori bias is that the individuals who would do this type of study in Seattle are not representative of the median US police officer

The second link wasn't done with officers in Seattle, it was done with officers in Spokane. Washington gets a lot more rural once you leave the Seattle area, so I think it's a lot more representative than you give it credit for. Honestly you seem to be operating from the assumption that the median police officer is a racist rather than giving the benefit of the doubt.

None of the articles or studies undercuts BLM. They're meant to show that the situation is more complicated and nuanced and teasing out proper and actionable conclusions will take more data and time. But that kind of headline doesn't get you eyeballs and clicks.

As a unarmed white person that was shot at by the police. I anecdotally agree. The biggest problem I have with BLM is that they seem to miss the militarism of the police as the driving force in this.

Because media needs to write about something and they don't care if they fuck up the country and divide you?

More white people are shot by police officers in your country, yet black community has a bigger crime rate.

[0]:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/1...

The article wants to talk about population but we all know that crime rate is what matters. If anything, you should protest all the killings, but media has turned into a racial issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com