I'm not convinced that a study that relies on IQ (which is itself a biased metric) and self-reported data (self-reported data is low quality) makes the picture "unclear".
Fryer's "Use of Force" paper would be a stronger argument I feel, but even that relies on very patchy data and doesn't take into account the higher likelyhood of minorities being stopped without cause.
Managing a small law enforcement operation is hard. On a national scale it's a monumental task, and human beings are biased and irrational at the best of times.
Not sure why the US doesn't record statistics on things like police shootings. Given the lack of data, if US law enforcement doesn't suffer from insitutional racism then it may well be through pure dumb luck; as there's no way to compare departments, or tell which policies or initiatives have a positive or negative effect.
> I'm not convinced that a study that relies on IQ (which is itself a biased metric) and self-reported data (self-reported data is low quality) makes the picture "unclear".
1. I didn't intend to communicate that this paper alone makes the picture unclear. This paper is just one source that indicates no bias in law enforcement.
2. This paper explains why IQ is a reasonable factor
3. This paper explains why this self-reported data is reasonable
4. The data from convicted criminals, victims, and law-enforcement all tell a similar story (African Americans commit crimes disproportionately)
I agree with you that there are huuuuge gaps in our data collection, and this is a really serious problem. Besides the gaps you mentioned, Eric Holder's justice department stopped releasing information on race of perpetrators in 2009 and many large (liberal) cities don't report this information either. This information is obviously critical if we want to determine whether or not we have a racial bias in law enforcement.
At best, the evidence paints an unclear picture in the U.S.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256079484_No_eviden...