Of Course, Because it Doesn’t Match the Narrative

I remember when this came out but I did not hear the backstory.

Harvard professor says ‘all hell broke loose’ when his study found no racial bias in police shootings (msn.com)

The study found that police were more than twice as likely to manhandle, beat or use some other kind of nonfatal force against blacks and Hispanics than against people of other races. However, the data also determined that officers were 23.8 percent less likely to shoot at blacks and 8.5 percent less likely to shoot at Hispanics than they were to shoot at whites.

When Fryer claimed the data showed “no racial differences in officer-involved shootings,” he said, “all hell broke loose,” and his life was upended.

The world-renowned economist knew from comments by faculty that he was likely to garner backlash. Fryer admitted that he anticipated the results of the study would be different and would confirm suspicions of racial bias against minorities. When the results found no racial bias, Fryer hired eight new assistants and redid the study. The data came back the same.

After the report was published, Fryer lived under police protection for over a month. He had a seven-day-old daughter at the time and went shopping for diapers.

When there is such as strong emotional reaction there is a high probability the skewed belief is emotional rather than factual and/or logically based.

I know a former FBI agent who left the FBI after hesitating to shoot a black teenager. He had every reason to shoot him, but hesitated because of his skin color. He and his partner ended up not getting hurt and the black teenager surrendered rather than take deadly action. But it really shook the FBI agent. He left the FBI and law enforcement.


9 thoughts on “Of Course, Because it Doesn’t Match the Narrative

  1. If you talk to cops, among those who actively think about what their job is and what it entails, there’s a tremendous fear of children, especially those in a “minority” group.

    The kids are getting more violent, more disrespectful of authority, and more aggressive in all ways. There can be, and are, circumstances in which immediate application of lethal force is not just “a” solution, it’s the only solution, and the public media rape that will follow puttting two rounds center mass into LaQuishia, Juan or Abdul will be, if not career-ending, severely career-limiting. If one is committed to the “20 and out” strategy it’s certainly an incentive to avoid those sorts of conflict scenarios.

    Not that Joe or Jane Citizen defending him- or herself won’t suffer the same fate in the media, plus the “DA colonoscopy” (an especially rigorous one if Old George funded that DA’s ascension) but, usually, there’s not a career hanging in the balance.

    Just whatever’s left of one’s productive life in that community.

    Some days, more frequently of late, in fact, it seems we’re getting closer and closer to that “nuke it from orbit” thing.

    • The remedy is the National Divorce and immigration to America from the People’s Republic, as needed.

      • “The remedy is the National Divorce and immigration to America from the People’s Republic, as needed.”

        I emphatically disagree, and in the strongest way possible.

        The people to whom you are willing to grant half the country for free did not build it, they did not struggle to create any part of it, they consistently fail in the maintaining of it, in short, they have not earned it and they do not deserve any part of it.

        Beyond that, “half” will appease them for only mere moments; they do not want half, even if it’s delivered totally free, with no concomitant cost to compensate those who did build it; they want all of it and will not stop until they have achieved it.

        “Retreat” never wins battles and we are in the battle of our lives, that for our country and our civilization. We must go forward, not back, on all fronts, however difficult that will turn out to be.

        • What you said. Plus, I would add. That it’s not property they want, it’s you.
          Without you to tell what to do, to serve them, they’re lives have no meaning.
          We could give them the whole country and they would still be miserable.
          What use does the Margue de Sade have with nature?
          It’s victims he desires. One can’t be a ruler without peasants.
          That’s why almost every one of those commie fags live in cities. And seeks the power to rule.
          Something, everything.

  2. I’m not sure how “… the data also determined that officers were 23.8 percent less likely to shoot at blacks…” translates to “no racial differences in officer-involved shootings”. It actually seems to translate to: there are definitely racial differences, with blacks being treated more favorably than other groups. And given modern politics, that isn’t all that surprising. Cops have to know that shooting a white perp is unlikely get them summarily fired without any investigation, or tortured in the local and national media.

  3. One can only imagine want would happen should the police “Lavoy Finnicum”, blacks? AKA. Set up roadblocks and gun them down when they get out of the car?
    Or maybe Jack Yantis a few?
    Oh ya, or maybe burn a church full of them like they did in Waco?
    Or maybe just start saying they’re as big a threat to the nation as white supremist, you know, plane white folks? As true “white supremist”, have been an endangered species even before they shot Sammy Weaver and his mom.
    Hell, BLM murdered 5 police officers and injured 9 others in Dallas.
    They get funded by the vice president, instead of being put on the terror watch list. Even as avowed communists.
    And all that was on TV. And this professor thought he was going to come up with what in his study?
    Sounds like he got set up to fail. He certainly wasn’t smart enough to see it coming.

  4. Sounds to me as though the professor was acting as a scientist in good faith – acknowledging that he had a guess as to how it would turn out, but determined to follow the data and report on what he found.

    There should be approbation, not condemnation and censure, for this. If we cannot have an honest discussion about what is, then we cannot plot a course to where we wish to be.

    • Yes, I agree the professor mostly acted as a scientist (apart from tweaking “bias against whites” into “no bias”). It’s his colleagues that apparently acted as bigoted fanatics rather than scientists — and in modern academia that is unfortunately the norm, not the exception.

Comments are closed.