
Database of police who shoot citizens reveals who’s most likely to shoot - sohkamyung
https://theconversation.com/our-database-of-police-officers-who-shoot-citizens-reveals-whos-most-likely-to-shoot-119623
======
gillesjacobs
Here is the original paper:
[https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903856116](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903856116)

They use multinomial regression analysis with several county-level
socioeconomic factors. It looks like a solid study that shows no statisticly
valid correlation between victim and shooter ethnicity can be established.

~~~
ultrarunner
If use county-level data how do they account for more granular neighborhood
demographics? Maricopa County encompasses all of Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, etc.
Cook County has a huge amount of the Chicago metro area. I expect this effect
plays out throughout the US.

~~~
pssflops
Perhaps from crime reporting aggregation like how heyjackass[0] does it.

[0]: [https://heyjackass.com/](https://heyjackass.com/)

------
alfromspace
So it sounds like the entire national narrative about racism and law
enforcement we've been having for years now is built on sand.

~~~
dang
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents or further into
ideological flamewar.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
tinus_hn
It looks like a lot of data and some poor statistics.

~~~
gillesjacobs
The blog post does not include the original analysis. You can find the full
study here:
[https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903856116](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903856116)

PNAS is a highly regarded and high impact journal with stringent peer review.
Scepticism is always a must in sociology. However, it is poor form to outright
dismiss the findings as "poor statistics" without argument or reference to the
source.

~~~
vikramkr
I've seen some pretty iffy articles on molecular biology/micro biology etc
published in nature (not scientific reports) science cell. They were studies
that were technically OK, but made some excessively bad claims and
questionable methodological choices (eg left out performing a validation step
that's cheap and the next step in the research, curiously resigning that step
for anyone who would try and replicate the study). Prestige of the paper only
says standards are higher, not that any given paper is great, and especially
not that the conclusions are great.

