Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How we built the largest database of police use of force in N.J. history

nj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: How we built the largest database of police use of force in N.J. history

#61

Post by Spooky23 »

hanniabu wrote: post #38
danso wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The various local branches of the ACLU have been doing some impressive data projects. - NYCLU won a lawsuit that forced the NYPD to release a database of their stop-and-frisk activity. The analysis of the data -- which showed a huge racial disparity in who was targeted -- was instrumental in winning a court order to reform the practice. In 2011, the NYPD committed 685K stop-and-frisks. In 2017, they did 10K. [0] The…

> In 2011, the NYPD committed 685K stop-and-frisks. In 2017, they did 10K. Am I wrong to read this as "if we can't be racist about it we're just not going to do it as much"

No, it’s more like it doesn’t accomplish anything.

The point of stop and frisk is essentially to hassle everyone in a perceived high crime area and grab people with warrants, etc.

My dad worked in NYC public housing in the 90s, and these aggressive policing measures were both effective and welcomed (to a point) by the community, as it pushed out people that were ruining their homes and lives.

Like all things bureaucracy, the metrics ended up mattering more than reality. Aggressive policing became systematic harassment and the police go out of their way to not see things. That’s why you can walk through Rockefeller Center and observe scam cartoon characters hustle tourists 6 feet away from police details. Good metrics are valued higher than the public.

Re: How we built the largest database of police use of force in N.J. history

#62

Post by jmchuster »

hanniabu wrote: post #38
danso wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The various local branches of the ACLU have been doing some impressive data projects. - NYCLU won a lawsuit that forced the NYPD to release a database of their stop-and-frisk activity. The analysis of the data -- which showed a huge racial disparity in who was targeted -- was instrumental in winning a court order to reform the practice. In 2011, the NYPD committed 685K stop-and-frisks. In 2017, they did 10K. [0] The…

> In 2011, the NYPD committed 685K stop-and-frisks. In 2017, they did 10K. Am I wrong to read this as "if we can't be racist about it we're just not going to do it as much"

Why wouldn't you read it as "we eliminated 675k racially-motivated stop-and-frisks, and are left with 10k non-racially-motivated ones."

Re: How we built the largest database of police use of force in N.J. history

#63

Post by alehul »

toofy wrote: post #34
alehul wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Police are more than half as likely to die on the job as a trash collectors. How is this at all relevant to whether a police officer deserves privacy? Yes, their fatality rate is around half that of a trash collector. Since when was HN anti-privacy? You can use data like this to analyze and criticize the system , but I see no reason why the officers' identities would be helpful for any legitimate purpose, especia…

> Since when was HN anti-privacy? The Citizenry should have privacy while the government should be transparent. Tangent: Somewhere along the lines this has flipped and we've somehow stumbled into a situation where the government believes it deserves privacy and owes the citizenry none. I'm not sure how we ended up flipped, but it is not a good sign. This can probably go without saying considering the user-base here,…

I agree with what you're saying and the sentiment behind it (and the same goes for most of the other replies to my comment).

I just wonder: is there a better way than giving names to the public to make mob-rule style decisions? It's impossible for us to know the full context (which is maybe something the government should strive to provide for all instances of police response), and I can't help but feel that the public will make sweeping decisions, without due process, and without proper examination (which again, seems currently implausible).

While it's possible someone with more use of force is a rabid psychopath, it's also possible they've been in a lot of unlucky situations. I doubt the general public consider how true randomness can sometimes result in use-of-force outliers that are in fact behaving just fine, and have had a stroke of bad luck.

Re: How we built the largest database of police use of force in N.J. history

#66

Post by [deleted] »

adjkant wrote: post #54
rsync wrote: post #53

I wonder if this database contains height of officer ? I have this pet theory ...

Curious why this is downvoted as while I think there are probably much larger factors, the physical size of an officer compared to their use of force is certainly something that would make logical sense to correlate somehow given how society views size and power. If we're going to do a full analysis, why not include it? It could help clarify what psychological factors (which can be affected by how people treat you, w…

[deleted]

Re: How we built the largest database of police use of force in N.J. history

#67

Post by mindslight »

stareatgoats wrote: post #4

A database that lists the officers responsible for force by name, frequency and race. Resulting in neat graphs that strongly suggests that police violence is caused by two factors: individuals and/or race. Police brutality is a serious problem and data like this should be available, but several things here are (maybe intentionally) provocative: 1. Listing the officers by name is a kind of online vigilantism that ulti…

We know the "real reasons" from first principles - the people tasked with upholding the law have taken that as a license to flout it. Everything beyond that is a window dressing of politics, unfortunately necessary to rally outside pressure for these corrupt institutions to be reformed.

These statistics shouldn't need to be publicly done by independent groups, but could easily be done confidentially by the police departments themselves to avoid having to pay out compensation for their employees' crimes. Alas, police forces find it easier to double down and shirk off liability for the damage they cause, so here we are.

Re: How we built the largest database of police use of force in N.J. history

#68

Post by mindslight »

stareatgoats wrote: post #56
CptFribble wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Race is a social construct [...] that does not carry any explanatory meaning. It may be a social construct, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Bias is real. Race-based bias is real. People make decisions based on conscious and unconscious thoughts and beliefs about race. This has been demonstrated through numerous behavioral studies. What if the real reasons for a police departments behavior involve internally…

No, you are confusing race with racism: > In that case, race is very relevant to the "real reasons for a problem." I'm sure you mean that racism is very relevant etc. > In 2018, we can't discuss real reasons for police violence without race. In many cases, it is the reason. Same here, you can't reasonably mean that race " is " the reason for police violence, you (most probably) meant that racism is the reason for pol…

You're right - the real issue is probably more like the community an officer socializes in versus the one they police. But their own "race" is an easily-obtainable correlated proxy, and if your intention is to enlighten the discourse you'd be better off making the point as a constructive nitpick rather than sounding dismissive.

Re: How we built the largest database of police use of force in N.J. history

#69

Post by stareatgoats »

perfmode wrote: post #59
stareatgoats wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your pseudoscientific dismissal of racist policing Honest question: where did I dismiss racist policing, not to mention pseudoscientifically? I really can't find it. For the record, I agree with all your statements from "The fact remains" and forward up until the last sentence. To clarify FWIW: the problem is not race, it is racism . I find it problematic that the way this database is presented points rather to the…

Observe the sheer number of sound rebuttals to your statements. The variety and depth of your identified misconceptions should compel you to question the body of axioms and ideas on top of which you confidently espouse such demonstrably problematic arguments.

Sorry I don't buy that. I realize that race and racism are contentious topics, but we should really be able to discuss them rationally rooted in what is actually said, not based on assumptions, or by referring to number of objections etc.

I grant you points for rhetoric elegance with that line though [0], but it would be even more helpful if you would exemplify that assumed body of axioms and ideas (after which I expect to prove you wrong).

[0] "the body of axioms and ideas on top of which you confidently espouse such demonstrably problematic arguments"

Re: How we built the largest database of police use of force in N.J. history

#70

Post by DarthTetanus »

stareatgoats wrote: post #56
CptFribble wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Race is a social construct [...] that does not carry any explanatory meaning. It may be a social construct, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Bias is real. Race-based bias is real. People make decisions based on conscious and unconscious thoughts and beliefs about race. This has been demonstrated through numerous behavioral studies. What if the real reasons for a police departments behavior involve internally…

No, you are confusing race with racism: > In that case, race is very relevant to the "real reasons for a problem." I'm sure you mean that racism is very relevant etc. > In 2018, we can't discuss real reasons for police violence without race. In many cases, it is the reason. Same here, you can't reasonably mean that race " is " the reason for police violence, you (most probably) meant that racism is the reason for pol…

They’re not mixing up concepts. You’re being pedantic.
Post reply on HN