Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tommytornado OP t1_iwlb92c wrote

Reply to comment by hkaerki in US States, Police Training v Shootings/Violent Crime (per million) [OC] by tommytornado

>There is no correlation

I understand what you're saying but I don't understand how you can be so confident that there is NO correlation between fatal shootings and the amount of training, just because this graphic isn't showing one.

0

Pithy_heart t1_iwlce7t wrote

Because the OP provided the data (again, in not a beautiful way, but rather a mildly interesting way) and it shows no correlation, a regression would be flat and probably poor. To think beyond the data would be undermining the point of having data and analysis in the first place. By all means, if there is information that speaks as definitively in support of the opposite, provide it! Otherwise, without data, it’s just your opinion, and 100000% doesn’t belong in this sub.

3

tommytornado OP t1_iwldcgr wrote

To think beyond the data of course serves a purpose to go and find more data that speaks to your next hypothesis.

−3

Pithy_heart t1_iwlji0m wrote

Not my hypothesis, yours. I’m saying, put up the data that supports the incredulity you have to the results of this current graph. If it does, I’ll tattoo it on my ass (tongue in cheek), then it will be worthy of this subreddit.

1

tommytornado OP t1_iwlkegb wrote

>I’m saying, put up the data that supports the incredulity you have to the results of this current graph

The original graphic strongly implies more training = less fatal shootings. It doesn't appear to take into account population size, number of officers, or state crime rate.

My problem is just that. It a very limited dataset that draws an unsupported conclusion (the 'regression' line).

So I have posted here a graphic using extra data that shows no correlation.

Feel free to either go tattoo this on your ass now, or tell me what issue you have with it? :)

−2

Neutronenster t1_iwm22jf wrote

So basically, you found that states with more violent crime have less basic police training on average, which may explain the strong correlation between the training hours and number of fatal shootings? 🤔

1

Pithy_heart t1_iwn0cvq wrote

I’ve yet to see a correlation coefficient (r^2) to say anything being “strong” in correlation for either graph, and just eye balling it would say weak at best for both.

Also, my biggest critique, is that this simply isn’t beautiful, which is the point of this sub. If you knew, I really am trying to be helpful and not trollish.

1

Falxhor t1_iwngce9 wrote

Whether trained or untrained, most cops aren't actually that big a fan of killing other human beings. Crazy claim, I know. Combined with your graph, I'd say the it appears as though there is no correlation and it's easily explained why that is the case. Training isn't going to magically make cops not shoot people, and this is just my hypothesis/theory but if there's a situation where there is serious danger requiring drawing your weapon, you're usually past the point of deescalating the situation, which is what more training would mainly help you get better at. So I can imagine it wouldn't make the biggest difference in fatal police shootings. In fact, more training = more gun training so I suppose cops would be more accurate, and cops always go for the torso, not legs to immobilize the target safely, like some idiots think they do.

0