I’m glad you’re still considering this, I thought maybe I was a little too fresh in my last post and you lost interest!
This is not a proper logical inference. I think it’s a fair to point out that criminal history could have been more precisely specified. There could have been 60 categories, or 6000. But you can’t just conclude anything you want from a lack of precision. The most precise data you’ve ever seen contradicts your hypothesis that differences in criminal history are what accounts for differences in sentencing. Either acknowledge that that’s true, or present more precise data.
No. Her methodology is fully disclosed, if you find something wrong with it, by all means point it out.
It doesn’t have to. The point is to show that there is a racial bias in policing. And I don’t think framing it as anyone “versus” anyone is productive. As I’ve said, I think most officers are acting in good faith.
As I pointed out here, you offered three unsupported hypotheses to explain the disparities in policing, all of which have to be true for your explanation to work.
This study shows that the third is false in Oakland: black people are stopped at a rate greater than what we should expect given the demographics. So even if this study supports 1 and 2, it still undermines your position.