Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tommytornado OP t1_iwkq0ws wrote

Reply to comment by maxxim333 in US States, Police Training v Shootings/Violent Crime (per million) [OC] by tommytornado

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying no correlation between police training and fatal shootings? If so, then yes, and no.

My post here is in response to a previous post https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yw5xb8/correlation_between_police_training_and_fatal/ which asserted a correlation between police training and shootings (less training = more shootings). But they hadn't taken into account a great deal of other things.

That post seemed to take only two features and extrapolate. I'm taking more data and more features and showing that the cause and effect cannot be extrapolated from a mere two features.

Here, for example I'm not showing training vs shootings, but training vs shootings by crime rate, which changes the dynamic completely.

15

maxxim333 t1_iwkqbje wrote

I am saying that having in mind only this graph, there clearly is no correlation.

30

tommytornado OP t1_iwl0da5 wrote

That was kinda my point. In contrast to the original post which seems to show a correlation I can add other features and show no correlation.

edit:

The hours of training alone don't seem to make a difference to the rate of police fatal shootings.

44 of the 50 states all have a Police Fatal Shooting / Violent Crime index of 2 or less

Hawaii has no basic training but I find it hard to believe that police can be given a gun and head out to the streets with literally ZERO training.

45 of 50 states are in the cluster of 400 < training hours < 800, and Index < 4

The 5 'outliers' warrant a closer inspection in my opinion:

Why do Vermont and North Dakota have the highest indexes of police shootings by violent crime?

Why do Maine and Connecticut have such high training?

Is it really possible that police in Hawaii can go out with no training?

4

hkaerki t1_iwl44xp wrote

There is no correlation, because all of those numbers are super low. 1200 hours is a bit over 30 work weeks. I think here, where I live, the cops training takes minimum of three years.

9

IllustriousAd5963 t1_iwnj1nh wrote

Do you live in Connecticut? Because this website says it's only --- 818 hours --- of basic training to become CT cop. Can you fill me in on what the facts are for this, or a site where I can see for myself?

https://www.how-to-become-a-police-officer.com/states/connecticut/

Another couple sites say it's --- 900 hours --- of training for Connecticut police.

1

hkaerki t1_iwtwu5y wrote

I don't live in the US. So I can't tell you about the facts on that site.

1

IllustriousAd5963 t1_iwtwx8t wrote

oh, it's alright. which country you live in? I'm curious because 3 years and 1200 hours is a hefty amount of time for initial training.

1

hkaerki t1_iwu4b6o wrote

I live in Finland. And I think 1200 hours is not that much of training. I mean compared to studying 3 years in police academy.

1

tommytornado OP t1_iwlb92c wrote

>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

Fausterion18 t1_iwllhl7 wrote

>I think here, where I live, the cops training takes minimum of three years.

Press X to doubt.

0

trikristmas t1_iwkv72i wrote

How on Earth can your response to the comment be, I'm not sure what you're saying? It can't be more clear cut. The graph can't be more clear cut. You have the perfect outliers either side and a scrap of no correlation for the rest of it.

5

burns_after_reading t1_iwkvpyh wrote

OP is being super defensive, which makes me feel like all this is just politically motivated.

6

tommytornado OP t1_iwkzpvh wrote

Not even in the slighest politically motivated. My motivation was to demonstrate the problems of attempting correlations from a dataset with two features.

3

tommytornado OP t1_iwkzkfr wrote

>So no correlation whatsoever

This was your response, which I found very confusing as it wasn't clear to me if you were referring to my graphic, or the original graphic in the post https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yw5xb8/correlation_between_police_training_and_fatal/

−3

trikristmas t1_iwl418o wrote

Wasn't my response. And why would anyone know a link to a different graphic unless you specifically mention it, something you have not done 🤷

7