That same study shows that the disparities in traffic stops of black people are significantly higher in cases where the officer knew the race of the suspect before the stop. In other words, in those cases where it was possible for race to affect police behavior, we see an effect of race on police behavior. So the hypothesis that the disparity is based on differences in suspect behavior is undermined: where suspects are judged on their behavior and not their race, we see less racial disparity.
This is an argument in bad faith. I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that this doesn’t depend on the race of the officer, and it doesn’t depend on officers being evil. The only argument I’ve made is that black people are unfairly targeted by the police. The studies I’ve provided back that point up.
You know that’s not what the study is doing, because the study tells you what it is doing. The criminal history that was used in the study is the same criminal history that’s used in federal sentencing guidelines that judges use during sentencing.
The fact that you’re attacking strawmen should give you pause.
My point is that the best effort you’ve ever seen to actually control for the thing that you’re asking to control for undermines your position. It’s not that your position has been made impossible, but if you’re looking at the evidence in good faith, you need to acknowledge that the Bayesian inference from this study is that it’s less likely that your hypothesis is true.
To your “studies”
- This isn’t a study, it’s an opinion piece.
- When you get the full text, I hope that you apply to this study the same skeptical eye you apply to the other studies we’ve discussed. There are apparently significant methodological flaws that surely wouldn’t pass your high standards:
- In what way does this contradict any position I’m supporting in this thread?