Zone1 Research shows that regardless of race, poor people commit the most violent crime

[IM2]

Research shows that regardless of race, poor people commit the most violent crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 2008 through 2012:

“Persons in poor households at or below the federal poverty level had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households. This pattern of poor people having the highest rates of violence was consistent for both whites and blacks.”

For the period 2008-12:
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).

Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8-2.5 per 1,000).

The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.

Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).

Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).

Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household -poverty-and-nonfatal-violent-victimization-2008-2012

Notice the numbers per capita when all else is the same. Across the board, poor whites had higher per capita violence. rates than poor blacks

 

[White 6]

Research shows that regardless of race, poor people commit the most violent crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 2008 through 2012:

“Persons in poor households at or below the federal poverty level had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households. This pattern of poor people having the highest rates of violence was consistent for both whites and blacks.”

For the period 2008-12:
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).

Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8-2.5 per 1,000).

The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.

Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).

Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).

Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household -poverty-and-nonfatal-violent-victimization-2008-2012

Notice the numbers per capita when all else is the same. Across the board, poor whites had higher per capita violence. rates than poor blacks

That is sad and very unfortunate, but I bet you and your stats are correct..(again).

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Research shows that regardless of race, poor people commit the most violent crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 2008 through 2012:

“Persons in poor households at or below the federal poverty level had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households. This pattern of poor people having the highest rates of violence was consistent for both whites and blacks.”

For the period 2008-12:
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).

Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8-2.5 per 1,000).

The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.

Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).

Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).

Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household -poverty-and-nonfatal-violent-victimization-2008-2012

Notice the numbers per capita when all else is the same. Across the board, poor whites had higher per capita violence. rates than poor blacks

While thats most likely true it doesnt stop those poor from rising above their social status.
I grew up in an privileged household until my parents divorced when I was 12.
My mom raised me till I was around 17 and we were poor to say the least. I left home at 17 and lived like a pauper until I was 20.
Got tired of living in a house with no electricity or gas and cooking in a fireplace,taking freezing showers in February was the last straw.
I got off my ass and applied myself and whata ya know...things got better,and they continued to get better the harder I worked.
Take your victim hood somewhere else ya loser.

 

[theHawk]

Research shows that regardless of race, poor people commit the most violent crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 2008 through 2012:

“Persons in poor households at or below the federal poverty level had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households. This pattern of poor people having the highest rates of violence was consistent for both whites and blacks.”

For the period 2008-12:
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).

Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8-2.5 per 1,000).

The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.

Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).

Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).

Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household -poverty-and-nonfatal-violent-victimization-2008-2012

Notice the numbers per capita when all else is the same. Across the board, poor whites had higher per capita violence. rates than poor blacks

Nice try. Read the actual full report from your link. The rates of violent victimization are higher among whites than blacks or Hispanics.

The title of your thread is that people commit crimes the same when poor, which is false.

This means poor whites are victims more often than not of violence, and we all know the perpetrators of those violent crimes tend to be blacks or Latinos.

 

[White 6]

Nice try. Read the actual full report from your link. The rates of violent victimization are higher among whites than blacks or Hispanics.

The title of your thread is that people commit crimes the same when poor, which is false.

This means poor whites are victims more often than not of violence, and we all know the perpetrators of those violent crimes tend to be blacks or Latinos.

View attachment 758991

If it makes you feel any better, I posted stats showing black on black crime was higher by far that white on white or especially black on white. Mine had nothing to do with economic level.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Socio-economic status is always the biggest contributer to bad outcomes and decisions. Not just in America but every country. The difference is that Americans are free and have a defended Constitution so they are free to pursue their dreams whereas countries like Canada, North Korea, Russia.etc do not have such protections, they use a very heavy police state. In Canadas case to generate business for themselves by targetting and manipulating kids and they just hope that no one finds out and blows the whistle, especially to our allies who DO possess and defend liberty...

 

[Lisa558]

Of course we know that poor people commit the most crime. There is also a direct correlation between out-of-wedlock poverty and poverty.

That is why black people commit such a disproportionate amount of crime: they have a shameful 72% out-of-wedlock rate.

 

[Patriot01]

Research shows that regardless of race, poor people commit the most violent crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 2008 through 2012:

“Persons in poor households at or below the federal poverty level had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households. This pattern of poor people having the highest rates of violence was consistent for both whites and blacks.”

For the period 2008-12:
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).

Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8-2.5 per 1,000).

The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.

Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).

Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).

Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household -poverty-and-nonfatal-violent-victimization-2008-2012

Notice the numbers per capita when all else is the same. Across the board, poor whites had higher per capita violence. rates than poor blacks

Poor based on bad decisions, the poorest towns in America are mostly white and almost no crime

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Of course we know that poor people commit the most crime. There is also a direct correlation between out-of-wedlock poverty and poverty.

That is why black people commit such a disproportionate amount of crime: they have a shameful 72% out-of-wedlock rate.

There's certainly a lot of truth in that.
The government fucked up when they started paying Laquisha for every kid she popped out.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Of course. The wealthy just make what they do, legal.

 

[JoeB131]

Research shows that regardless of race, poor people commit the most violent crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 2008 through 2012:

“Persons in poor households at or below the federal poverty level had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households. This pattern of poor people having the highest rates of violence was consistent for both whites and blacks.”

For the period 2008-12:
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).

Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8-2.5 per 1,000).

The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.

Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).

Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).

Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household -poverty-and-nonfatal-violent-victimization-2008-2012

Notice the numbers per capita when all else is the same. Across the board, poor whites had higher per capita violence. rates than poor blacks

That begs the question, then, why does the government keep encouraging poor people to have babies they aren't ready for?

The people we want to reproduce (of any race) - young, urban professionals, often delay putting off children into their 30's because they are too busy doing the right thing of getting established.

MEANWHILE - if you are poor and unmarried and don't have a particularly good work ethic (of any race), the government gives you all sorts of benefits like Section 8, WIC, SNAP, TANF, etc.

At the risk of sounding conservative, this doesn't seem like good policy.

 

[Blues Man]

Research shows that regardless of race, poor people commit the most violent crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 2008 through 2012:

“Persons in poor households at or below the federal poverty level had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households. This pattern of poor people having the highest rates of violence was consistent for both whites and blacks.”

For the period 2008-12:
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).

Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8-2.5 per 1,000).

The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.

Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).

Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).

Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household -poverty-and-nonfatal-violent-victimization-2008-2012

Notice the numbers per capita when all else is the same. Across the board, poor whites had higher per capita violence. rates than poor blacks

Poverty and crime have always had a positive correlation.

People who deny that are just plain ignorant

 

[Ralph Norton]

Notice the numbers per capita when all else is the same.

So you DO acknowledge "per capita" as a legitimate measure - at least when it suits your narrative.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Here is the part that the "tough on crime" people won't acknowledge or address, many of them are aware I am sure. Those who are and do not speak up have their punishment waiting in the next life.

Before I explain this succinctly, I can say for certainty that this is the case in Canada and I suspect that American police may engage in similar tactics or else why would you support Canadian police who do?

Based on responses I have received from S Korean, UK cops AND a particularly slippery American who I chatted with a very long time ago; the world is aware of Canadian police tactics. For instance, the word "grooming" was a term I learned based on the comment made to me by one of them when THEY, not I, described Canadian police tactics.

I digress. Back to my point. Kids of police help the police apparatus to "manufacture threats" and to socially engineer vulnerable kids for their own rackets benefit. These same kids become cops, the kids who they destroy deemed "unredeemable" and have a lifetime of grief even if the culprit and battery behind the trouble making are in fact the future cops!! They are the provocateurs and agents of the crime!

We have all heard of the term Military Industrial Complex, but it pales to the level of depravity and intimate, creepy activities that the Security Industrial Complex in Canada engages in.

I have details which I couldn't provide here but might have to one day. There is a novel long book full of the names, details and abuses. As I've said, without covert (not those in uniform) Canadian police we'd have half of the crime that we do today...

 

[AZrailwhale]

Nice try. Read the actual full report from your link. The rates of violent victimization are higher among whites than blacks or Hispanics.

The title of your thread is that people commit crimes the same when poor, which is false.

This means poor whites are victims more often than not of violence, and we all know the perpetrators of those violent crimes tend to be blacks or Latinos.

View attachment 758991

The poor of all races commit more violent crime than the affluent of all races. This is a truism; affluent people have little reason to commit violent crime. On the other hand, affluent people tend to commit more "white collar" crime than poor people.

 

[IM2]

So you DO acknowledge "per capita" as a legitimate measure - at least when it suits your narrative.

No, I'm not because poor whites commit more total acts of violence. You use per capita to suit your narrative. I point out per capita because you guys don't bring this up. You guys don't begin to address poverty and crime you ignore it to make racist claims about black crime.

 

[IM2]

There's certainly a lot of truth in that.
The government fucked up when they started paying Laquisha for every kid she popped out.

There is no truth to this especially because:

Social Security Act Title IV, provided grants to states as Aid To Dependent Children. Eventually the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children. This was welfare folks. Assistance for single moms with children and no daddy at home. In 1935. Blacks were excluded. Aid to Dependent Children functioned mainly to provide federal grants to help the states with mothers’ aid laws that began in 1910.

The ADC plan was written by two ladies who had been former directors of what was at the time called the U.S. Children’s Bureau. The Children’s Bureau’s goal was to provide aid to all children whose mothers had no support from a husband no matter how they got into that position. From the Children’s Bureau in 1910 until 1965, no one talked about how the welfare state was wrong and created the disintegration of the white family. I read no lectures about the irresponsible white father. The program was not denigrated as something creating dependence on government; it was seen as essential assistance needed to help women without husbands who had children. Only when the law required that others besides whites be included did the story change to how the welfare state was wrong and destructive.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no truth to this especially because:

Social Security Act Title IV, provided grants to states as Aid To Dependent Children. Eventually the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children. This was welfare folks. Assistance for single moms with children and no daddy at home. In 1935. Blacks were excluded. Aid to Dependent Children functioned mainly to provide federal grants to help the states with mothers’ aid laws that began in 1910.

The ADC plan was written by two ladies who had been former directors of what was at the time called the U.S. Children’s Bureau. The Children’s Bureau’s goal was to provide aid to all children whose mothers had no support from a husband no matter how they got into that position. From the Children’s Bureau in 1910 until 1965, no one talked about how the welfare state was wrong and created the disintegration of the white family. I read no lectures about the irresponsible white father. The program was not denigrated as something creating dependence on government; it was seen as essential assistance needed to help women without husbands who had children. Only when the law required that others besides whites be included did the story change to how the welfare state was wrong and destructive.

Okay, here's the problem. The expectation before 1965 was that a woman with no husband (often due to widowhood as just having a kid out of wedlock, which was almost unheard of for white folks prior to 1965) was that at some point, she'd find a new man who would support her. They never expected to become full time wards of the government. To not have a man was considered something of a disgrace. So the white illegitimacy rate in 1952 was about 4%( Compared to 22% for African Americans).

It wasn't just that the welfare system was expanded to blacks, it was that after 1965, the whole concept of attaching shame to welfare disappeared. The fact that even with the advent of birth control (1965) and legalized abortion (1973) the illegitimacy rate continued to advance for all races.

It would be wrong to put all of that on the welfare state, of course, but the notion that if you have a baby out of wedlock and the government was obligated to take care of you became normalized, and not in a good way.

 

[krichton]

If the degree and nature of violent crime were equal for both parties we would see white people terrorizing citizens on public transport, we would see white people looting, stealing and robbing random people on the street, malls, shopping stores, we would see white people burning down random businesses, cars and literally be wilding in every american city considering the amount of white ppl in america, we would see white gangs and kids out roaming the streets committing violence everywhere, to the point where citizens would need to stay indoors at night. None of this is a reality. You can walk into any american city or town, see a group of white kids and not need to worry that you've entered their gang territory. Statistics can have a lot of variables that are not accounted for. How often crime is reported among these crimes can be another factor. Link is dead btw.