Embed from Getty Images
After responding to a report of vandalism in a Sacramento neighborhood, two police officers fired 20 shots at Stephon Clark. Clark, who was in his grandmother’s backyard, was struck by eight bullets and died. The officers claim that Clark lunged at them and that they mistook his cell phone for a gun. For some, this is yet another bloody thread in a pattern of police violence against minorities. For others, it is just another isolated incident—regrettable, to be sure, but hardly part of a pattern.
Naturally enough, controversial events are rather like the Rorschach test: people see, it is said, what patterns or lack of patterns their minds impose. These might (or might not) match reality. For example, those who fail to see a pattern in police shootings might clearly “see” a pattern of refugees and terrorism, regardless of the actual numbers. Likewise, a person might “see” the opposite. This is why statistical analysis is rather important. While statistical data is also subject to interpretation and abuse, it tends to be the most objective manner of finding or disproving alleged patterns of events. This is not to say that statistical analysis can reliably overcome ideology: the classic fallacy of anecdotal evidence (rejecting statistical evidence in favor of a story that runs counter to the evidence) shows how statistics can fail to convince in the face of bias.
Even when statistical data is used, it is still filtered through the lens of values. In the case of police violence against black men, the National Review asserts that it is rare. However, Vox notes that a disproportionate number of black men are killed by the police. Interestingly enough, both of these claims can be true: the police could rarely kill black men, yet kill them at a disproportionate level. Naturally, what counts as rare can be a matter of considerable dispute. What is disproportionate or not would seem less controversial; it can be defined in terms of the makeup of the population. However, this can also be a matter of contention—one stock reply to the claim that blacks are disproportionately killed by the police is that blacks commit more crime and hence the killing is thus proportional.
For regular readers of my work, it should be no surprise that I agree that the use of violence against blacks is disproportionate and I agree with the data that shows unarmed minorities are more likely to be killed by the police than unarmed whites. I also agree that police violence is relatively rare, at least in proportion to death by other causes (adjusting for age and other such factors). Roughly put, I would venture that a black man is not likely to be killed by the police, but he is more likely to be killed than a white man even if unarmed. This does show the existence of a problem involving race: while the police should rarely be killing people, the rate of killing should be proportionate regarding the relevant factors, such as whether the person is unarmed or not.
There have been various attempts to account for these facts. Some involve claims of systematic racism, others involve the claim that people are subconsciously racist. Some, of course, deny there is even a real problem. While systemic racism has been on the decline in the United States (no one can rationally deny that it is an historical fact), it has not been eliminated. There is also the claim that everyone suffers from subconscious racism. As someone who teaches critical thinking, I can attest to the existence of cognitive biases and it seems quite reasonable to think that people are infected with a wide range of stereotypes and that these include stereotypes about race. These stereotypes are also fed and watered by certain folks in the media, thus increasing their intensity and spread in the population. As such, it is not surprising that officers who shoot blacks appeal to the defense that they were afraid for their lives. This narrative has been challenged on the grounds that in many cases the police had no reason to be afraid. This challenge is certainly appealing, but it is worth noting that fear is often irrational: people can be afraid when there is no good reason to be afraid. That is, their perception of a threat is disproportionate to the actual danger.
A point worth making is, of course, that police should be selected and trained so they are not so easily ruled by fear. After all, it should not be a surprise that police will get into scary situations and will need to make rational judgments. After all, normal citizens are held to strict standards regarding when they can legitimately shoot someone. For example, if I killed my next-door neighbor’s grandson in their backyard because I was “scared”, I would presumably be charged with a crime—even if vandalism had been reported in the area. Then again, Florida does have some very “generous” stand-your-ground laws. I now turn to the matter of Stephon Clark and the fact that he was shot in the back.
Dr. Bennet Omalu conducted an autopsy of Stephon Clark and found that Clark had been struck by eight bullets, seven of which were potentially fatal shots (based on the location and damage of the injury). Media attention has, of course, focused on the fact that most of the bullets struck him in the back. Dr. Omalu did note that the first bullet struck Clark in the side and probably caused him to turn away from the officers so that the other shots struck him in the back. This is consistent with the officers’ claim that Clark was facing them. As such, while the police did shoot Clark in the back, this seems to be because the initial shot turned him rather than the police simply shooting him in the back. If Dr. Omalu is right, then this is clearly relevant to the assessment of how the officers acted—it is one thing to shoot someone in the front (or side) and quite another to shoot a person in the back. That said, even if the officers shot Clark as he faced them, the other facts are quite concerning.
One point of concern is that the officers were on a vandalism call and not responding to a violent crime. While a vandal could turn violent, the police should have approached the situation proportionally while, of course, being prepared to respond to an escalation. Another point of concern is that the police fired 20 times at Stephon Clark because, they allege, they thought he had a gun. In the video, the officers rush into the backyard, yell at Stephon Clark to show his hands and then almost instantly start firing. While the officers were no doubt worried about coming under fire, Stephon Clark was no doubt shocked by the sudden appearance of the officers and almost certainly froze for a second. He did not, one would think, have any chance to respond before the police started shooting. Since the police had no reason to believe that there was an armed threat in the area, their response seems unjustified.
One obvious counter would be to advance a counterfactual: what if the police had surprised an armed suspect in the backyard and delayed firing to allow them the chance to respond to their challenge? If the suspect shot an officer, then the narrative would presumably be that waiting to confirm that the suspect is armed and has a hostile intent puts police at needless risk. Naturally, it can be responded that there is a moral duty to take that slight risk to verify an armed, hostile suspect. As noted above, if a civilian killed a neighbor’s grandson in a similar situation, they would rightly be regarded as morally irresponsible and would probably face criminal charges.
This raises the broader moral issue of the extent to which police must take a risk to avoid killing innocent civilians by confirming whether they are engaging armed hostiles or unarmed innocents. On the face of it, it seems eminently reasonable to take at least some risk—especially in situations in which they have no reason to think they will be facing armed hostiles. This is not just because they are police, but a key part of basic gun ethics. After all, all my firearm training has emphasized repeatedly the importance of not shooting unless one knows what they are shooting and the moral consequences of pulling the trigger. Part of the moral concern is, of course, that some claim the police are far less inclined to take that risk when facing minorities.
In closing, it must be noted that the death of Stephon Clark is a single incident and thus an anecdote in a sea of data. However, the data does seem to indicate that the police are more likely to kill unarmed minorities than unarmed whites and that the police use of force against minorities is disproportionate. As such, while appealing to Stephon Clark’s case would be to appeal to an anecdote, it is a bloody illustration of the statistical data.
“…For regular readers of my work, it should be no surprise…”
No, it’s not.
The sum total of all the links that you post and even your analysis of them, though, points to the unreliability of such data and such conclusions; the data are subject to a whole laundry list of factors that can skew them in their raw form, and the conclusions are necessarily colored by preconceived notions about race in this country.
I do agree that it is vitally important to refer to statistical information rather than news reports; a little time with Google reveals page after page of one biased report after another – “It’s clearly racisim” – “It’s clearly not racism!” – alternating back and forth, one after another. I found myself reading the one-sentence headline on Google, then looking at the source, and just skipping them.
If you do read the articles carefully – the ones you link, those by the Washington Post, by Snopes and other seemingly reliable sources, they all point out the flaws of their own studies …
From the discussion on Snopes:
“Nick Selby, author of the 2016 book In Context: Understanding Police Killings of Unarmed Civilians, does not believe there is sufficient data to conclude that black police officers are more likely to kill black citizens, but he agrees with Lott’s finding that white police officers aren’t more likely to kill black suspects than their colleagues of color.
Part of the problem, he said, is that in the absence of reliable government data, researchers often rely on media reports, but those reports are more likely to mention the ethnicity of an officer who kills if the officer is white and the decedent is black.”
With your most recent essay on “Skepticism” fresh in my mind, I’m not going to address the statistics – they are what they are. To the extent they can be interpreted in such a variety of ways, I’ll say that they are essentially meaningless – unless taken in a “Post Modern” context, as we have discussed before. They will be assessed based on their usefulness within the framework of a larger political agenda.
I will also say that it is my belief that much of the support for the narrative in question is based not only on mainstream media, but on social media as well. Here’s an article in the New York Times, for example:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/black-deaths-police.html
Aside from the obvious point of the article, and reading between the lines, I focused in on the prhase, “High Profile Cases”. I asked myself if there is such a thing as a “High Profile Case” involving any other mix besides a white cop and a black victim. Certainly there are cases – as flawed as they are, the raw statistics bear that out in every report – but the reaction is more “ho-hum” than anything else. White cop/Black Victim makes the headlines every time; creates “High Profile” cases, and sparks a wave of outrage across the country.
(see above paragraph from Nick Selby’s book … “Part of the problem, he said, is that in the absence of reliable government data, researchers often rely on media reports, but those reports are more likely to mention the ethnicity of an officer who kills if the officer is white and the decedent is black.” )
I mentioned in a post a long time ago that my mom was shocked when I, at the tender age of 10 or so, said, “The truth doesn’t really matter – it’s what people think is true that guides their actions”
I believe that very strongly. People are going to believe what they will, regardless of what research and statistics show them. In fact, the research and statistics can show all sorts of conflicting things. Some will believe that African Americans are disproportionately victims of police violence, and in that belief will protest, will put signs on their lawns, will kneel during the National Anthem at football games, and some will even riot. Some will believe that this disproportion is due to a disproportionate number of African Americans being involved in crimes, relative to population distribution – and those believers will act how they act. Police may respond to the disproportionate number (relative to population) of African Americans that are likely to shoot at an officer – others will deny that statistic and call the police racists.
And all of it is backed up by believable statistics and analysis – which is in turn skewed by preconceived beliefs.
I’ve heard it many times from many sources, but my favorite source was a statistics professor in college who actually had the cajones to repeat to us as to what were the three kinds of lies. Can you name them?
Ha! Well, what I’ve heard is “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”
Bingo. Some would say he was putting himself out of business by saying that. In reality, a world rarely inhabited by philosophy professors, he was emphasizing to us the very subjective nature of most statistical gathering in the human domain, but also the extreme limitations one needs to take with the inferences that inevitably will/must be drawn from even some of the best statistics. A skeptical mind takes the kind of statistics one finds in the general media with a huge grain of salt. In more objective domains, such as hard sciences and engineering, a little less so.
Good points. As you note, there is a data problem when it comes to police shootings (and shootings in general). As such, there is the basic question of how good the data is. There is, as we both note, the problem with filtering data through values. As I mention in the post, what counts as rare varies considerably. We can, of course, try to reach a consensus about what is rare in each context-but that probably will not pan out for obvious reasons. For example, I think that fatal police shootings are rare compared to the vast majority of other causes of deaths, but others would contend that they still happen too much.
You are also right to point out the Spotlight Fallacy that occurs in the media. As you note, certain stories get the attention and thus create impressions that can be out of sync with reality.
Mike, would you say that men are disproportionately imprisoned compared to women?
Indeed. Or that men are disproportionately shot by police compared to women?
An illustration of the point that statistics mark spots to start inquiring, rather than to draw conclusions.
True, men get shot more by the police in large part because they are more likely to do things that would get them shot. Also, police would tend to see a male as more threatening than a female.
Humans are very bad at reasoning or even conceptualising about groups, group incidences, group comparisons. We don’t even have good language for it. We have developed formal mathematical tools, but not many people ever learn to use them.
I should know better, but a quick look is not necessarily harmful so long as we remember not to take it too seriously. I downloaded the database from fatalencounters.org, and limited the selection to Males killed by Gunshots. (There are more deaths caused by fleeing from police than I would have thought – car crashes and falls.)
When comparing the races, the disparity in profiles by age jumps out at me, even more than race. Black men aged 15-25 have a very high incidence, and then the deaths by police shooting tail off much faster than for Whites.
So, to be more specific, do more young black men do things that put them at risk of being shot by police than other age/race groups? (This is an example of how bad our language in these matters is.)
P.S. After watching the bodycam and WashPo videos, I resolve if I am ever being chased by a helicopter in the dark across people’s backyards, and then climb over a backyard wall to be met with a cop demanding “Show me your hands”, to act as peaceful as I possibly can, and establish immediate calm communication.
An excellent question and a very relevant one for the discussion for what is proportional. Just going by the numbers, men are imprisoned at a rate disproportional to their presence in the overall population. By this standard, 51% of prisoners should be women and 49% men (roughly speaking in the US). But, this is not the case. While it could be argued that men are more likely to be sentenced to prison than women, the obvious explanation is that men seem to commit much more crime than women. As such, it can be argued that men are imprisoned proportionally to the rate at which they commit crimes.
To use an analogy, the percentage of people running marathons who are skinny is way higher than in the general population, but this is not the sign of any conspiracy or oppression.
I take it that your implied point is that blacks are imprisoned proportionally to the rate at which they commit crimes. This does lead to questions about why the crime rate is higher as well as concerns about arrest rates for the same crimes.
This is a good point. I think it is incorrect to define “proportion” relative to population, whether you are talking about men & women or white vs. black. It is more accurate (but still flawed) to define proportion based on the rate of crime within a particular group.
According to statistics compiled by the Washington Post, there were 457 white and 223 black people shot to death by the police in 2017. Almost exactly double the number of whites as blacks.
Some argue that this means that the police are more likely to kill whites than blacks, based on the pure numbers. Others argue that this disproportionately affects African Americans, because they represent half of the total number of victims, but only 13% of the overall population. So which is it?
The answer is “D – Not enough information”
According to FBI statistics (here’s a link to the kind of data you can get) the database of criminal activity organized by race pretty much echoes the statistics of those shot by cops – the number of crimes committed by whites are roughly double those committed by African Americans. When you look at the nature of those crimes, those which may result in violent encounters with the police tend to skew a little more toward African Americans. In 2016, there were 4192 murders and/or non-negligent manslaughters committed by whites, but 4935 committed by African Americans – or 44% white, 52% African Americans. Robberies are similar – 33,095 committed by whites, 41,562 by African Americans – or 43% – 54%.
The rest of the statistics seem to be generally in line with the shooting numbers, but in no case do they even come remotely close to population distribution. If population distribution had anything to do with it, we would expect that 72% of crimes would be committed by whites, and 13% by African Americans, but the statistics don’t bear that out. Of the total number of crimes on the table (which include many white-collar crimes that are unlikely to result in violent encounters with the police), African Americans are responsible for just under 30% – well over double their representation in our population. In contrast, caucasions are responsible for just under 70%, or more in keeping with their representation.
One outlier, which may have a meaningful effect on the statistics, is that of weapons charges – on the table it’s referred to as “Weapons: carrying, possessing, etc”. In that category, the number of incidents are 55.9% white, 41.8% African American.
Based on these statistics (and I only cite 2016; the other years are very similar), there would seem to be some merit to the statement that “African Americans commit more crimes than whites, relative to their overall population representation”. On the other hand, there would also seem to be some merit to the idea that race has little or nothing to do with police shootings; the rate of shootings relative to race is very much in keeping with the rate of crime relative to race – roughly half of the total number of crimes are committed by African Americans, and they represent roughly half of the total number of shootings by police.
One other interesting data point is this table, which shows the year by year number of officers feloniously killed in the line of duty, separated by the race of the offender, where known. In the years from 2007 – 2016, the number of officers killed by whites is at most double that of African Americans; and sometimes it’s actually less. (One notable exception is 2014, where 42 officers were killed by white offenders, as compared to 14 by black).
It is easy to put too much emphasis on statistics like these, though. It’s easy to conclude that African Americans commit far more violent crimes relative to their population, are far more likely to attack police officers relative to their population, and are far more likely to be carrying weapons – which would certainly account for the heightened fear among police officers when encountering African American offenders; and would also suggest that there is very little difference in police shootings based on race.
But, in keeping with WTP’s caution about “LIes, Damned Lies, and Statistics”, we have to be very careful about what we do with these numbers. Starting with, “Why is it even organized by race in the first place?”
It may be attributable to urban vs suburban or rural communities. It may be attributable to poverty, or education, or single-parent households. It may be attributable to local conditions, domestic violence, or any number of other factors or combinations of circumstances that have nothing whatsoever to do with race, or for which race is a coincident factor (like poverty, for example).
Just like with the argument about gun control – every incident has its cause and effect, each incident bears with it a host of circumstances and details – and just because we can draw a common denominator and attribute the numbers to race, doesn’t mean that race is even a factor.
Quite right; when making comparisons it is essential to consider what relevant data is being left out. In some cases, due consideration of these factors can show that something is proportionate. As many have noted, the news media typically does not go into a careful analysis of the data (left or right). Even when an interview with an expert is conducted, the tendency is to eliminate the boring stuff in favor of interesting sound bites. Being in academics, I know a few experts in various fields and they routinely complain that, when interviewed, what they say almost always gets chopped up and selectively quoted. NPR seems to do the best with this sort of thing, since they are willing to have longer shows that get into the gears and cogs.
“…the news media typically does not go into a careful analysis of the data (left or right).
This is so true. But it doesn’t really matter. Even if or when they do, people don’t read it – not enough time or not enough motivation to try to understand. I’ve pointed out here many, many instances where the third, fourth, or fifth paragraph of a news article will make the headline nothing more than an inflammatory irrelevant eye-catcher, yet that’s what people believe. How many blog posts and comments, no matter how relevant and on-point, do we see with the comment, TLDNR?
Beyond that (some interesting examples below), people who believe one way tend to not be swayed by facts presented on the other side. The Wall Street Journal, for example, can present pages of information about the flaws of liberal fiscal policy, but liberals will dismiss that and believe what they read in the Guardian. And vice versa, of course.
“…NPR seems to do the best with this sort of thing, since they are willing to have longer shows that get into the gears and cogs.”
I listen to NPR a lot, actually, and I agree to a certain point – however, they have an editorial bias in which the longer shows begin with their own premise, and then present the gears and cogs that underscore this premise. In this, they aren’t any different from any media presentation.
For example, there are dozens of talk shows and interviews regarding exactly the topic we’re discussing – events like Ferguson, and police bias, and the disproportionate number of African American over white victims of police shootings. These shows, as you say, take a deep dive into the psychology of this, the persistence of racism, speculations as to the cause of this – and believe me, there were plenty of shows this week because of the anniversary of the death of MLK. However, there are paltry few, if any, that present the data on the other side, as I have tried to do. That’s why I also listen to conservative talk radio, and read the NY Times and</i the Wall Street Journal (when I can), or at least check the source and/or byline of articles on the web and look for an opposing viewpoint on the same issue – again, whenever I can.
I often finish listening to NPR with the thought, "Gee, no wonder the left thinks the way they do! If this were all I listened to, I'd be right in there with them!"
But speaking of NPR, there is a podcast of a show called "Hidden Brain" that was presented last December titled “I’m Right, You’re Wrong” (scroll down to December 25 of last year) that shows why this is largely irrelevant.
This show features an interview with a neuroscientist named Tali Sharot, who is discussing certain concepts in a book she has written called “The Influential Mind”, about why it is so difficult to change people’s minds and beliefs, despite a preponderance of fact.
We believe what we believe, and we believe in our beliefs. NPR can drill down into all the gears and cogs they want – just as Glen Beck can. Sharot makes the point that this data will serve to bolster the beliefs of those who agree, but be dismissed or challenged by those who don’t. While on average, she says, it is correct to “stand your ground” (I have trouble with this – don’t understand why, exactly), she also says that it makes it that much more difficult to change false beliefs.
She also makes the point that we are far more likely to be swayed by an emotional, rather than data-driven, appeal to alter (or underscore) our beliefs.
The example that she gives is when Trump, in a campaign speech, appealed to emotion by talking about “a child – a beautiful child” who, after having been vaccinated by a doctor wielding a syringe fit for a horse, went home and two days later, began to show signs of autism.
This example carried a lot of impact for people, emotionally – and when Ben Carson came out and said, very authoritatively, that vaccinations bear no correlation to autism, many just wouldn’t buy it. In the face of an emotional appeal that backs up an inherent mistrust, the facts fall short of influencing anyone.
Those on the left, I imagine, might use an example like this to bolster their belief that Trump is a liar, etc., etc – exactly as predicted by Sharot – but this example is not much different from the subject we are discussing.
While there are years and years of factual data from credible sources to the contrary (some of which I have presented here), the pervasive belief is still that the police are racist, that there is a disproportionate rate of shootings of African Americans over whites, and that an African American is correct in fearing for his life during an encounter with police. Why?
Extrapolating on the ideas presented in this show, I would say that this is in part due to the emotional appeal of that argument, and the rejection of facts in favor of that appeal. Correlating autistic children to vaccination or the police shooting of an African American to racism is the same appeal – it is the same cum-hoc or post-hoc fallacy, yet in the face of either, the emotion overrides the facts. All the FBI and census data, year after year, pale in comparison to an Internet video of a black teenager lying in a pool of his own blood after having been shot by a cop.
It’s a good show, an interesting concept – and it’s relatively short (~25 minutes). Give it a listen if you have the time.
whoops – forgot to end my italics there … sorry
I really like “Hidden Brain”, good stuff.
You are right that NPR does also tend to wrap each show in a narrative. In some cases, the wrapper is painfully apparent in what the host(s) say. In other cases, the host(s) seem to make a real effort of giving the opposing sides a fair shot at making their case.
But, as you said, people tend to pick and stick when it comes to an affiliation. What probably helps contribute to this is that things are usually cast as having two sides, so people are pushed into affiliations when they might originally have a range of views across, for example, the two parties.
I guess when you are talking about parties, which have a range of issues and a lot of various points of view, you are correct. When talking about a single issue, like gun control or capital punishment, or something like that – people tend to dig in and defend their positions even in the face of much credible evidence.
The example of the autistic child is a good one – even in the face of Carson’s authoritative and well-researched studies showing that there is no correlation between vaccination and autism, many people tended to believe the emotional, but less factual, story that Trump told during the primaries.
The issue of racist police is the same. We are presented with heavily impactful and gut-wrenching images of dead African American teenagers and other African Americans who have been assaulted by the police – yet the FBI, DOJ, and census data all point to even treatment across all races relative to the totality of the crimes do not sway believers away from their position that police are racist.
We are swayed by emotion, we dismiss logic and facts when they contradict our own beliefs, and trust those that agree with us.