LogFAQs > #888847962

So here's a list of studies with more recent data.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Nice cherry-picking. Mine source was a meta-analysis. Most (10) studies found no evidence of bias. The rest were mostly mixed (one of those mixed studies found the racial disparities evaporate after more controls were added to the mix). Being "more recent" means nothing if no extra controls were considered (in a few of the "recent" studies in your link, no controls at all were considered, rendering them worthless).

Regarding the studies that used controls;

1. Cody Ross used an unreliable Gawker/internet crowd-sourced database that only examined 700 shootings in a four year period (there are a thousand a year). One can not rule out unconscious bias on part of the Gawker editors that compiled the list, or bias by the MSM reporting such events (this may have resulted in murky police shootings of white people being ignored, skewing the results). That blog was heavily biased in favor of the BLM narrative, well before the list was compiled.

The Roland Fryer study later mentioned in your link used a more comprehensive database, covering every OIS, both lethal and non-lethal, over a period of many years, finding;

On the most extreme uses
of force, however officer-involved shootings with a Taser or lethal weapon there are no racial
differences in either the raw data or when accounting for controls...the coefficients still suggest that, if anything, officers are less
likely to shoot black suspects, ceteris paribus, though the racial differences are not significant.

These studies are also recent and used controls.

http://www.slguardian.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Prev-2016-Miller-injury_US_POLICE.pdf

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2017/07/a-new-study-finds-white-dallas-police-officers-dont-disproportionately-use-less-than-lethal-force-against-minorities/

2. This is based on a tiny percentage of police shootings from the 2015 Washington Post database. Those deemed "unarmed". Drawing any conclusions on "police bias" from such a small sample is unwise. Last year, only 16 black men were shot and killed while unarmed, according to the Washington Post. A tiny, insignificant amount, and a dramatic reduction from the previous year.

3. Studies by advocacy groups are hardly reliable. Like the Ross study, it also ignores the disproportionate rate at which minorities seriously injure or kill cops (especially in comparison to their arrest rate).

http://media.washtimes.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/misc/2017/05/04/study.pdf

Over 50% of cop killers in 2016 were minorities. For blacks, 36% despite being only 25% of those arrested. Granted, these are small samples too, but there's a consistency over a period of many years which we have not seen with shootings of unarmed black men.

For 2015, black men accounted for 42% of those who wounded cops with firearms or stabbing/cutting weapons.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2015/detailed-assault-topic-page-summaries/assaults_with_injuries_firearm-cutting-instr-topic_page_-2015

4. Most of the rest are about racial disparities in police searches of vehicles. Most of which are due to "proactive policing" in higher crime areas, which are disproportionately minority. Some, like in NYC, evolved into racial profiling where even minorities living in low crime areas were being targeted for stops and searches.

The few that are about police violence either do not apply controls (see 12, 16) or use questionable methodology (see 13, did the cop treat the blondes with kid gloves? LOL). With the exception of Frier's study which found mixed results (bias in non-lethal force but none in lethal force or stun guns).