Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[trixR4kids]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Without attempting to correct for a whole slew of variables that exist in this subset of court cases involving cops selected over 12 years, you can say nothing about the conviction rate correlating to the average of all cases last year. There is no mathematical basis for it. Maybe in 50 of the cases the victims were convicted felons and maybe juries only rule in favor of convicted felons 40% of the time. Maybe the laws in 45 of the cases favored the defendants. Maybe the law has been changed in some jurisdictions over that time. Maybe a hundred other things. That too few cops were convicted is a statement of belief based on other things. It could be right, it could be wrong, but it cannot be based on this statistic as despite appearances, there is effectively no probability of correlation between them.

I get how stats work, ideally we'd have a larger sample. We don't, that study is the best we can do apparently and no 80 isn't that small.

Most of these cases don't even get to the point where the cop is charged and they just punt the case before a grand jury, that's also not included in these 80. The fact that these cases are even going to trial shows that they're more egregious than the ones that don't even make it there and the idea that the conviction rate being much lower isn't a red flag is something I don't buy I at all. Yes these 80 aren't random or a huge sample but there's really no reason to think the conviction rate is magically higher with a larger sample.

[SJHovey]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I get how stats work, ideally we'd have a larger sample. We don't, that study is the best we can do apparently and no 80 isn't that small.

Most of these cases don't even get to the point where the cop is charged and they just punt the case before a grand jury, that's also not included in these 80. The fact that these cases are even going to trial shows that they're more egregious than the ones that don't even make it there and the idea that the conviction rate being much lower isn't a red flag is something I don't buy I at all. Yes these 80 aren't random or a huge sample but there's really no reason to think the conviction rate is magically higher with a larger sample.

Imho, these conviction statistics posters are citing are all explained by the exact same fact, and certainly not due to any sort of prosecutorial effort, or lack of the same. What these statistics show is that when these incidents are presented to 12 members of the public, the public wants to believe the police officers, they want to think the police officers did the right thing, and they give the officers a tremendous benefit of the doubt. As a result, criminal cases result in a high degree of conviction when it's the cop testifying against the defendant, and a much lower rate of conviction when it's basically the defendant testifying against the cop. Cops serve as our modern day Lancelot. We want to trust and believe in them. It helps us sleep.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Boiling it down it appears the jury followed the law and the law says if the cop thinks your a threat for any reason whatsoever (you're black, you're hispanic, you mention the word gun in any way, you're scary looking, etc.) they can shoot you. Plain and simple.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Boiling it down it appears the jury followed the law and the law says if the cop thinks your a threat for any reason whatsoever (you're black, you're hispanic, you mention the word gun in any way, you're scary looking, etc.) they can shoot you. Plain and simple.

I don't think that's what the law is though. There needs to be a REASONABLE fear of danger, ie not what this cop or George Zimmerman faced.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I don't think that's what the law is though. There needs to be a REASONABLE fear of danger, ie not what this cop or George Zimmerman faced.

I don't find the "reasonableness" of either of those cases credible. I wonder what I would have done on either jury? I'd like to think I would have hung them both but maybe I would have been persuaded too. Who knows?

[Jimjamesak]

I'm not criticizing you personally Handy, but the day people throw up their hands and say there is nothing they can do about it because "they" in the government just won't agree to it is the day we've lost. You are definitely not alone in feeling this way. I understand that. In fact, it's one of my primary gripes because too often it feels to me like people working in the government feel that way, too, like they are a separate entity and it's "us versus them." But the legislature is us, and we are the legislature. If we cede that authority, then a pox on us.

The pox is already on us, the minute anyone proposes legislation to toughen standards every police conservative group cries about how this "makes things tougher for officers! It's unnecessary, you liberals just don't understand how police have to do their jobs!" And there is nothing that can be done about that.

[burd]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I don't think that's what the law is though. There needs to be a REASONABLE fear of danger, ie not what this cop or George Zimmerman faced.

I think it's usually both. Actual fear plus the requirement that the fear be reasonable under the circumstances. The "under the circumstances" part takes into account the specific facts the officer was dealing with.

[SJHovey]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The pox is already on us, the minute anyone proposes legislation to toughen standards every police conservative group cries about how this "makes things tougher for officers! It's unnecessary, you liberals just don't understand how police have to do their jobs!" And there is nothing that can be done about that.

I'm pretty sure that as recently as 2014 in Minnesota, both houses of the legislature were controlled by the "liberals," as was the Governor's office. Certainly by that date issues relating to police shootings were well-documented, yet the "liberals" did nothing to change the law which might have resulted in a conviction in this particular case.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I get how stats work, ideally we'd have a larger sample. We don't, that study is the best we can do apparently and no 80 isn't that small.

Most of these cases don't even get to the point where the cop is charged and they just punt the case before a grand jury, that's also not included in these 80. The fact that these cases are even going to trial shows that they're more egregious than the ones that don't even make it there and the idea that the conviction rate being much lower isn't a red flag is something I don't buy I at all. Yes these 80 aren't random or a huge sample but there's really no reason to think the conviction rate is magically higher with a larger sample.

I would disagree that you entirely get how stats work, as I think you'd have a different response, but I give up.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I think it's usually both. Actual fear plus the requirement that the fear be reasonable under the circumstances. The "under the circumstances" part takes into account the specific facts the officer was dealing with.

Right, it's just amazing to me that a jury was at 10-2 given the specific facts. Either the prosecutor didn't do a great job of explaining what constitutes a reasonable fear or they thought that reasonable doubt = any doubt whatsoever. I guess we could just blame the jury for being dumb (certainly not impossible) but I'm guessing there's more to it than that.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I would disagree that you entirely get how stats work, as I think you'd have a different response, but I give up.

You're the one who used the five coin flip false equivalency to start us off so yeah...

Your point on it only being 80 cases is well taken and yes there's probably a bit of variance from the average due to it being a smaller sample and not random. But it's still incredibly far off from the average and knowing how these cases always unfold there's zero reason to assume the most drastic variance in your favor. You're also ignoring the grand jury part, grand jury ---> trial happens the vast majority of the time (something like 99%) and that number is definitely not the same for police.

[Handyman]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I'm not criticizing you personally Handy, but the day people throw up their hands and say there is nothing they can do about it because "they" in the government just won't agree to it is the day we've lost. You are definitely not alone in feeling this way. I understand that. In fact, it's one of my primary gripes because too often it feels to me like people working in the government feel that way, too, like they are a separate entity and it's "us versus them." But the legislature is us, and we are the legislature. If we cede that authority, then a pox on us.

Oh I plan to make my voice heard at the ballot box...but right now we are very far away from that. In this moment there just is not much that we can do to make things better except hope the people who can make a difference listen to us.

[Handyman]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Imho, these conviction statistics posters are citing are all explained by the exact same fact, and certainly not due to any sort of prosecutorial effort, or lack of the same. What these statistics show is that when these incidents are presented to 12 members of the public, the public wants to believe the police officers, they want to think the police officers did the right thing, and they give the officers a tremendous benefit of the doubt. As a result, criminal cases result in a high degree of conviction when it's the cop testifying against the defendant, and a much lower rate of conviction when it's basically the defendant testifying against the cop. Cops serve as our modern day Lancelot. We want to trust and believe in them. It helps us sleep.

This is very true. No matter how much people may distrust cops overall when it comes to a trial juries would rather assume (even blindly so) that the officer wasnt acting with malice or didnt make a mistake. They dont want to think otherwise cause to do so calls into question the entire system.

It is also why you will never see a President removed from office. Once that actually happens the entire Presidency and the Executive Branch will fall into disrepute.

[Scarlet]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Sadly, I don't think we'll see any change until a Black cop kills a white teenager.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

You're the one who used the five coin flip false equivalency to start us off so yeah...

Your point on it only being 80 cases is well taken and yes there's probably a bit of variance from the average due to it being a smaller sample and not random. But it's still incredibly far off from the average and knowing how these cases always unfold there's zero reason to assume the most drastic variance in your favor. You're also ignoring the grand jury part, grand jury ---> trial happens the vast majority of the time (something like 99%) and that number is definitely not the same for police.

Ok one more try.

The point about it being only 80 is minor to the problem. I showed how selecting 500,000 coin flips out of a million would still give you a wrong result. But I'll try a different tack: Let's say you know as a fact that all mammals average 8 hours of sleep per day. Using the same reasoning you're using here you commence your own study of giraffes expecting naturally, that they will sleep about 8 hours a day as they are mammals. Much to your dismay, the giraffe's you study must all be sick because they are only sleeping 3.5 hours a day!

What is wrong here? "Well Wisko, you idiot, I have you this time because I sampled 20,000 giraffes and therefore have a 99% confidence level +- 1! Ha! And they are all mammals and they are all suffering sleep deprivation! Call the ASPCA you goon!"

Except all giraffes do in fact only sleep 3.5 hours a day and they are fine. The EXPECTATION that they would sleep eight is based on the faulty notion that there is a relationship between the average number of hours all mammals sleep, and the number of hours the subset 'giraffes' sleep -- because statistics! But there isn't a relationship like that.* For example the subset 'brown bats' sleeps 20 hours a day. A probability relationship would exist if you took a random sample across all mammals, but not if you just sample giraffes. There is not just "a bit of variance", there is no effective relationship. The correct number of sleep hours for an eastern spotted skunk could be anything!

Here we are taking the subset 'cops' (plus, no doubt, other variables) excluding all others and EXPECTING a result that is equivalent to the average result of all other cases. Why? Is it because that fits in with what we think it should be? That's fine, but it doesn't come from the numbers.

I suspect the conviction rate for 'alienation of affection' is quite low these days. DUI conviction rates are fairly high. The best we can say right now from the data presented is that a cop has a roughly 1/3 chance of being convicted in a jury trial. And even that is suspect.


*Theoretically, you possibly could come up with a formula that estimates values for all giraffe variables and spits out the generally correct answer. But we're not doing that for giraffes and certainly not for all the variables connected with high profile court cases in front of juries. If we could, the answer for cops may be 20%, (like giraffes) or 90% (like brown bats). We don't know!