We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant...
- Thread starter TemplarKormac
- Start date
I get messed up in the quotes sometimes also
I think you misunderstand the way the math works.
Yes - whites should be represented in higher numbers. But lets look at math and ratios.
77% of the population is white.
14% is black.
You would expect to see that same ratio on death row: 77%/14%. Instead you see a really skewed ratio of 43%/42% that is way out of line with the general population. Blacks are more than 3 times over-represented on death row.
The numbers vary according to source with Whites at 77-80% and Blacks at 13-14%. Using this source: United States Demographics Profile 2014 the US population in 2014 was 318,892,103.
13% (using same source) are black - that's 41,455,973, making the percentage on death (1291) to be .00000311
80% are white - that's 255,113,682, making the percentage on death row (1334) to be .00000052
No matter how you do the math - you are getting a much larger percentage of blacks on death row than is represented in the general population and a much (order of magnitude) larger proportion of the black population on death row than of the white population.
No I did not miss it. The same source also stated this: The race of the victim and the race of the defendant in capital cases are major factors in determining who is sentenced to die in this country.
You're changing it to crime in general - I'm talking about crime and the justice system. How the justice system and law enforcement respond.
Well duh...whites are 6 times more prevalent than blacks in the population, you would expect to see them arrested at six times the rate of blacks.
What evidence supports that a "disproportionate number of whites are shot by cops than blacks?
No, it makes your math wrong
I'll refine it with these examples then:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/09/us/mckinney-texas-pool-party-video/
New video of Sandra Bland's arrest before she later died in jail | Daily Mail Online
University cop indicted in traffic stop shooting - CNN.com
Not quite. Were they pulled over for some minor thing that a white person would have gotten away with? I already showed you statistics stating that blacks are more likely to be searched on a routine traffic stop than whites for example. Or, harrassed like Sandra Bland.
f) As for incarceration, I have no doubt you are referring to the ACLU report by Ayers and Borowski of the supposed racial profiling of the Los Angeles Area in 2003 and 2004. That report however was soundly debunked, by David Klinger, a professor of criminology at the University of Missouri - St. Louis and former LAPD police officer himself. What Ayers and Borowski did was try to set the benchmark, saying a disproportionate amount of blacks are profiled. But as the LA and National crime statistics show, blacks commit more crimes than whites. Pure and simple.
Two examples , one from that that 28 year study I posted earlier:
Blacks don't necessarily commit more crimes. They are more likely to be arrested and more likely to be convicted than whites.
More facts for you to chew on:
Racial disparities in the Juvenile Justice System: RACIAL DISPARITIES SEEN AS PERVASIVE IN JUVENILE JUSTICE
Black and Hispanic youths are treated more severely than white teenagers charged with comparable crimes at every step of the juvenile justice system, according to a comprehensive report released yesterday that was sponsored by the Justice Department and six of the nation's leading foundations.
The report found that minority youths are more likely than their white counterparts to be arrested, held in jail, sent to juvenile or adult court for trial, convicted and given longer prison terms, leading to a situation in which the impact is magnified with each additional step into the juvenile justice system.
In some cases, the disparities are stunning. Among young people who have not been sent to a juvenile prison before, blacks are more than six times as likely as whites to be sentenced by juvenile courts to prison. For those young people charged with a violent crime who have not been in juvenile prison previously, black teenagers are nine times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile prison. For those charged with drug offenses, black youths are 48 times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile prison.
Similarly, white youths charged with violent offenses are incarcerated for an average of 193 days after trial, but blacks are incarcerated an average of 254 days and Hispanics are incarcerated an average of 305 days.
The report found that minority youths are more likely than their white counterparts to be arrested, held in jail, sent to juvenile or adult court for trial, convicted and given longer prison terms, leading to a situation in which the impact is magnified with each additional step into the juvenile justice system.
In some cases, the disparities are stunning. Among young people who have not been sent to a juvenile prison before, blacks are more than six times as likely as whites to be sentenced by juvenile courts to prison. For those young people charged with a violent crime who have not been in juvenile prison previously, black teenagers are nine times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile prison. For those charged with drug offenses, black youths are 48 times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile prison.
Similarly, white youths charged with violent offenses are incarcerated for an average of 193 days after trial, but blacks are incarcerated an average of 254 days and Hispanics are incarcerated an average of 305 days.
Racial Disparities In Arrests Are Prevalent, But Cause Isn't Clear
The difficult question to answer, Heath says, is why these disparities in arrests are so prevalent across the agencies reporting data to the FBI. He says while it certainly points out the possibility of law enforcement bias, it could point to other factors as well.
Report shows deep racial disparity in arrests in Madison
A black person in Madison is over 10 times more likely than a white person to be arrested, according to an analysis published Sunday by the Wisconsin State Journal.
The newspaper reviewed two years of Madison Police Department arrest data and found police arrested whites at a rate of 2.6 arrests per 100 white residents annually, compared to arresting African-Americans at a rate of 27.6 arrests per 100 residents. Hispanics also were more likely than whites to be arrested.
The newspaper reviewed two years of Madison Police Department arrest data and found police arrested whites at a rate of 2.6 arrests per 100 white residents annually, compared to arresting African-Americans at a rate of 27.6 arrests per 100 residents. Hispanics also were more likely than whites to be arrested.
Analysis: Blacks in Madison arrested at more than 10 times rate of whites - This article makes some good points, both on the degree of the racial disparity in arrests and on the complex reasons as to why.
Disparities occur not just in arrest rates, but in every step of the way from how they are handled in the Juvenile Justice System to the Death Penalty.
Court Processing
• African Americans were more likely to be sentenced
to prison and less likely to be sentenced to probation
than Whites.
• The average prison sentence for violent crime was
approximately one year longer for African Americans
than for Whites.
• African Americans were convicted for drug charges at
substantially higher rates than those for Whites.
Incarcerated in Prisons and Jails
• Nationwide, African Americans were incarcerated in
state prison at 6 times the rate for Whites and in local
jails at almost 5 times the rate for Whites.
• African Americans were on probation at almost 3 times
and on parole at over 5 times the rate for Whites.
Death Penalty
• The rate at which African Americans were on death row
was almost 5 times the rate for Whites.
Juveniles
• Rates of youth admitted to adult prisons were 7 times
higher for African Americans and over 2 times as high
for Native Americans as for White youth.
• Disparity in the juvenile justice system is the worst at
the deepest levels of the system
And you think #Blacklivesmatter is little more than a race war group? I think they have a very legitimate concern.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
1) FACT 6 - The emancipation proclamation CHANGED the focus of the civil war. Before it was about preserving the union NOT slavery. You proved that historical fact yourself - thank you.
2) Also fact: President Lincoln used the freed slaves to add colored troops in an attempt to regain the union army's strength. It's also a FACT that the proclamation prevented foreign nation's involvement into the war. Can you answer me why? No you can't.
3) WHY did the emancipation proclamation ONLY free slaves of those slaves in rebellion and NOT the north who had the rich upper class in possession of more slaves than the south?
When you can answer those wuestions above as to why the union held onto their slaves, while the proclamation ONLY affected the south states in rebellion. Then we can engage in an "intelligent" discussion about the civil war. Until then take a lesson in United States history.
Last edited:
FACT: The focus of the war for the south was SLAVERY. The south was fighting to retain slavery.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #107
You missed the point.
In the rant, I launched a figurative argument. How would those who bashed the Confederate flag after the shooting in Charleston react if someone called for a ban on the gay pride flag in the wake of a gay man murdering two people on live TV?
Suddenly the narrative shifted from hating one flag to defending the other. Same circumstances. Different reactions. Double standard.
I don't want to ban anything. But it was something to think about.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #108
You keep using the proportional argument. But like I said. The crime statistics say blacks commit more crimes, thus are represented more in prison populations, arrests, and death row.
Loving the fact that we are using the "blacks are over represented, therefore there must be a racist motive" argument. Just because whites make up the majority of the population doesn't mean they have to make up for that by being the majority of prison populations, killers, or death row inmates.
That's the whole thing, expectations don't mirror reality. Your expectations are rather naive "there are more whites than blacks, therefore there should be more whites than black on death row, or arrested, or..."
In 2005, the following was found in "The Color of Crime"
- Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
- When Blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-Blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
- Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the White rate.
- The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is Black and Hispanic.
- Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving Blacks and Whites, Blacks commit 85 percent and Whites commit 15 percent.
- Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are Black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When Whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are Black.
- Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a White than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
- Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.
- Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
- Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.
- Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139 to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39 million.
- Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than Whites. Hispanics are three times more likely.
The Color of Crime (Second, Expanded Edition, 2005)
You can see here that the high crime rate directly correlates with the high incarceration rate.
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
I challenge you to show any pictures of this dude with a gay pride flag displayed in it. The Charleston shooter had several.
Additionally, if you followed the news stories, you would have seen that although he was gay, this was not a hate crime committed by a gay man over gay rights. He was a mentally disturbed person who had been fired from several jobs because he was unable to keep his temper in check, and when he was fired from the television station whose reporters he killed, he warned them that they should call the cops, and also gave a wooden crucifix to the station manager and told him that he was going to need that cross later.
He then moved into an apartment that was ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE NEWS STATION.
No, this wasn't because he was gay, it was because he was mentally disturbed.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
So the north wanted to rid this country completely of slavery? That alone is the reason the nation went into Civil War?
Let's look at the efforts of those who represent the north during the civil war.
The Civil War was fought between April 12, 1861 - April 9, 1865
On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863.
Northern Generals:
William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.
U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865
I'm sure you can give me a reason WHY the northern commanders didn't give up their slaves in honor of President Lincoln's executive proclamation? Tell me.... Exactly HOW MANY UNION STATES freed and ended their participation of slavery soon after the address was made by President Lincoln? I'd really love to see your response to this in your next post. Show me your facts regarding the north and proof that they actually ended their use of slavery from among the union states soon after that executive order. Then you have proven your argument, and I will concede.
Last edited:
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
That's your rationale for racist policies?
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #113
He said he was gay. No pictures needed. And we all know what flag represents the LGBT community.
But what made the flag responsible for the murder? If I can't blame the LGBT flag for the murder, how can you blame the Confederate one for the murder in Charleston?
No, it was also racial. Black on white murder. He consistently accused his colleagues of racism and bigotry.
Yeah, we can call him mentally disturbed, or someone who committed premeditated murder.
That's quite the convenient justification.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
If you read history regarding Lincoln, it says he "changed" his focus of the war and made it about slavery only after the proclamation was presented. When you look at the position of the south, they believed in a form of government that surrounded greater state's rights and representation over a Federal Government power that desired to subject IT'S will over the individual states. That Federal Government was viewed as squelching freedom and the rights of those states. Lincoln made things worse by using a union army to further subject his will against them, showing himself as an invader of the south. That only reinforced the confederates desire to have the states be represented over a Fedetal body that's forcing its will upon them to comply. When you look at the exact wording of that proclamation it reads that the Federal Government would issue a proclamation to those STATES IN REBELLION that the President will free slaves in those states that don't comply with the north. The President yet again was using FORCE against those states in succession to force them to end their rebellion.
Read the proclamation carefully:
Lincoln issued a warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863.
So according to the written proclamation warning of 1862 - IF the south had ended their rebellion against the north, President Lincoln would not end slavery and would not seek to free those slaves from among the states of the south. If these ARE the terms as it was clearly written, there is then NO BASIS to say that the initial Government will over the south had always centered around the need to end slavery.
Read that first proclamation to the south, look carefully to those conditions written regarding "slavery". Had the south ended their rebellion, Lincoln would NOT end slavery in those states. Now tell me again that the preservation of slavery was the reason why the south rejected the proclamation and continued to succeed against the north, when that very same "preservation" was promised to them as a condition by Lincoln himself for returning to the union. End your rebellion, and we will not free those slaves from among your states and thereby not seek to end slavery in this nation.
It doesn't exactly work that way. For example, blacks are more likely to receive jail time or the death penalty than whites - for comparable crimes. This is particularly true in capital cases and research has shown that when the perpetrator is black, or the victim is white the penalty is substantially greater.
From: There's blatant inequality at nearly every phase of the criminal justice system
Black Americans are more likely to have their cars searched. Nationally, black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over and less likely to receive a reason for being stopped. In one Rhode Island study, black drivers were stopped more even though they were less likely to receive a citation.
Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug use. Police arrest black Americans for drug crimes at twice the rate of whites, according to federal data, despite the fact that whites use drugs at comparable rates and sell drugs at comparable or even higher rates.
Black Americans are more likely to be jailed while awaiting trial. A 2014 study in New York City showed that blacks were more likely than whites or nonblack minorities to be in jail while they await trial, even after controlling for the seriousness of charges and prior record. Other research suggests that this disparity is often due to the fact that black defendants cannot afford to pay bail. The temporary incarceration stigmatizes the defendant, disrupts family life and employment, and makes it harder for the defendant to prepare a defense.
Black Americans are more likely to be offered a plea deal that includes prison time. The same study in New York found that black defendants are more likely to be offered plea deals that include prison time than whites or nonblack minorities. Even after controlling for many factors, including the seriousness of charges and prior record, blacks were 13 percent more likely than whites to be offered such deals. (note - this would certainly influence crime rate statistics where a white person might get a much lighter sentence for felonies, community service, fines, no prison time or the ability to have it expunged from the record after a certain number of years).
Black Americans may be excluded from juries because of their race. Researchers found that North Carolina prosecutors were excluding black people from juries in capital cases at twice the rate of other jurors, even when controlling for legitimate justifications for striking jurors, such as employment status or reservations about the death penalty. Other studies have shown that excluding black people from juries can influence deliberations and verdicts. For example, black defendants in capital cases with white victims are less likely to receive a death sentence if there is a black juror.
Black Americans are more likely to serve longer sentences than white Americans for the same offense.
A 2012 working paper found “robust evidence” that black male federal defendants were given longer sentences than comparable whites. Black men’s sentences were, on average, 10 percent longer than those of their white peers. This is partly explained by the fact that prosecutors are about twice as likely to file charges against blacks that carry mandatory minimum sentences than against whites.
Black Americans are more likely to have their cars searched. Nationally, black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over and less likely to receive a reason for being stopped. In one Rhode Island study, black drivers were stopped more even though they were less likely to receive a citation.
Black Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug use. Police arrest black Americans for drug crimes at twice the rate of whites, according to federal data, despite the fact that whites use drugs at comparable rates and sell drugs at comparable or even higher rates.
Black Americans are more likely to be jailed while awaiting trial. A 2014 study in New York City showed that blacks were more likely than whites or nonblack minorities to be in jail while they await trial, even after controlling for the seriousness of charges and prior record. Other research suggests that this disparity is often due to the fact that black defendants cannot afford to pay bail. The temporary incarceration stigmatizes the defendant, disrupts family life and employment, and makes it harder for the defendant to prepare a defense.
Black Americans are more likely to be offered a plea deal that includes prison time. The same study in New York found that black defendants are more likely to be offered plea deals that include prison time than whites or nonblack minorities. Even after controlling for many factors, including the seriousness of charges and prior record, blacks were 13 percent more likely than whites to be offered such deals. (note - this would certainly influence crime rate statistics where a white person might get a much lighter sentence for felonies, community service, fines, no prison time or the ability to have it expunged from the record after a certain number of years).
Black Americans may be excluded from juries because of their race. Researchers found that North Carolina prosecutors were excluding black people from juries in capital cases at twice the rate of other jurors, even when controlling for legitimate justifications for striking jurors, such as employment status or reservations about the death penalty. Other studies have shown that excluding black people from juries can influence deliberations and verdicts. For example, black defendants in capital cases with white victims are less likely to receive a death sentence if there is a black juror.
Black Americans are more likely to serve longer sentences than white Americans for the same offense.
A 2012 working paper found “robust evidence” that black male federal defendants were given longer sentences than comparable whites. Black men’s sentences were, on average, 10 percent longer than those of their white peers. This is partly explained by the fact that prosecutors are about twice as likely to file charges against blacks that carry mandatory minimum sentences than against whites.
There is more in the article but all of these factors would have an effect on prison populations, skewed conviction rates and even arrest rates if blacks are more likely to have their cars searched or receive penalties for drug convictions.
Placing it all under racism would be oversimplifying it - many factors influence crime rates and arrest rates, for example poverty - which effects one's ability to mount a good defense or make bail (as just one example). However, when you read the article I cited above it is also quite clear that there are racist elements involved as well: striking blacks from juries, the disproportionate representation of blacks on death row and the way death sentences are given as well as sentencing for drug crimes and the offering of plea deals.
The Color of Crime is a problematic resource and I question it's scholarship: New Century Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tim Wise wrote the following rebuttal to it in The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science
“A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots.”
Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime — A Look at How Racists Do Math
Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.
To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.
But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).
As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor’s position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group’s members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.
As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).
Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.
Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.
To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.
But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).
As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor’s position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group’s members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.
As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).
Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.
Meathead
Diamond Member
Black Americans have to stop being so violent. A society has a right to protect itself regardless of political correctness and the self-righteousness of some of its members.
Of course society has a right to protect itself. Crazy damn gunrights nuts.
Meathead
Diamond Member
To be fair, not all blacks are nuts about guns. A lot of the thus are though, and a society needs to protect itself.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Trump-Deranged FL Election Volunteer Arrested for Stealing Encrypted Access Key Ahead of Special Election- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 7
-
Help with Finding Running Boards for a Dodge Ram 1500 "Mega Cab."- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 11
