Why Are Blacks Arrested More Frequently?

[jaeger19]

per capita is EVERYTHING.

And in regards to the most serious crimes like murder, the most you can say is that the 200 million or so white people commit about the SAME NUMBER of murders as the 43 million or so black people.

Thus, if you randomly encounter a black person on the street, statistically they are far, far, far, far, far more likely to be a dangerous criminal than a randomly encountered white person.

Per capita is everything.

No.. per capita is not everything.,, I have already tried to explain it to you and you are not apparently capable of understanding it.

If you are walking down the street.. its much more likely that you will come in contact with a white criminal than you will a black criminal.

Remember back at the example...

2 out of four cocker spanials tip over garbage that's 50% of cocker spanials are garbage tippers

20 out of 100 labs are garbage tippers... so only 20% of labs.

that means that of garbage tippers 2 are cocker spanials.. and 20 are labs...

If you are in a random meeting.. you are much more likely to come in contact with a lab garbage tipper because statistically their is more of them.

That is statistical fact.

 

[Dayton3]

Actually that's not the logic I am using. Not even close.

good for a laugh though.

It makes a lot more sense than when you say "per capita doesn't mean anything".

Absolute numbers are the ones that actually mean little because no person in a nation like the U.S. will ever encounter EVERY white and black person in the nation.

On the other hand, they will encounter a sampling of both.

And that sample of black people are a lot more likely to be criminals than the sampling of white people.

 

[Dayton3]

No.. per capita is not everything.,, I have already tried to explain it to you and you are not apparently capable of understanding it.

If you are walking down the street.. its much more likely that you will come in contact with a white criminal than you will a black criminal.

Remember back at the example...

2 out of four cocker spanials tip over garbage that's 50% of cocker spanials are garbage tippers

20 out of 100 labs are garbage tippers... so only 20% of labs.

that means that of garbage tippers 2 are cocker spanials.. and 20 are labs...

If you are in a random meeting.. you are much more likely to come in contact with a lab garbage tipper because statistically their is more of them.

That is statistical fact.

No it is a statistical fallacy.

Now don't feel bad, you are making a classic statistical error that even college students make. And trust me Business Statistics is a hellishly tough course.

You are comparing samplings (the first part of your argument) to populations (the second part of the argument).

 

[jaeger19]

It makes a lot more sense than when you say "per capita doesn't mean anything".

Absolute numbers are the ones that actually mean little because no person in a nation like the U.S. will ever encounter EVERY white and black person in the nation.

On the other hand, they will encounter a sampling of both.

And that sample of black people are a lot more likely to be criminals than the sampling of white people.

No sir you are not correct in that..

Tell me

Lets say I have 100 tickets in a bucket representing a representative sampling of our population..

4 tickets in the bucket are colored red.

96 tickets in the bucket are colored white..

I tell you that in the bucket.. 2 of the red tickets are "winners" (representing criminals)

I tell you that in the bucket 30 of the white tickets are "winners" (representing criminals)


In a random drawing.. what is your chances that you will draw a white "winner" versus a red "winner"

Please answer.. in a random drawing.. which are you more likely to draw as a winner????? a red ticket winner (only 2 out of 100) or a white ticket winner ( 30 out of 100)?

Please answer.

 

[jaeger19]

No it is a statistical fallacy.

Now don't feel bad, you are making a classic statistical error that even college students make. And trust me Business Statistics is a hellishly tough course.

You are comparing samplings (the first part of your argument) to populations (the second part of the argument).

No its not.. you a making the critical error in not understanding the small overall size that the black population represents.

Your premise only works if say..

We c
ollected all the white people in the country into an area and you could not run into a black person.. ..

AND we then in another area collected all the black people and put them in an area where you could not run into a white person.

If you were to do that.. then you could say that statistically you were more likely to run into a criminal when walking in the black area than when walking in the white area. Because the sample size of the black area is so much smaller than the sample size of the white area.

However, once you MIX those two populations and draw randomly from them.. then you are more likely to run into a white criminal.

 

[Dayton3]

No its not.. you a making the critical error in not understanding the small overall size that the black population represents.

Your premise only works if say..

We c
ollected all the white people in the country into an area and you could not run into a black person.. ..

AND we then in another area collected all the black people and put them in an area where you could not run into a white person.

If you were to do that.. then you could say that statistically you were more likely to run into a criminal when walking in the black area than when walking in the white area. Because the sample size of the black area is so much smaller than the sample size of the white area.

However, once you MIX those two populations and draw randomly from them.. then you are more likely to run into a white criminal.

Look at it this way.

Turn that population into 100 people.

13 will be black.

63 will be white.

Randomly select from that population.

You will of course more likely draw a white person than a black person

But a smaller portion of those white people selected will be criminals because black people commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes in the United States.

Per capita means everything

 

[jaeger19]

Look at it this way.

Turn that population into 100 people.

13 will be black.

63 will be white.

Randomly select from that population.

You will of course more likely draw a white person than a black person

But a smaller portion of those white people selected will be criminals because black people commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes in the United States.

Per capita means everything

Again no.. you will not only more likely draw a white person..but you are more likely to draw a white person that's a criminal. because their are more white criminals in that 100 people than black criminals.

Per capita does not mean everything. Because again.. if you randomly draw.. you are more likely to get a white criminal.

 

[Dayton3]

Again no.. you will not only more likely draw a white person..but you are more likely to draw a white person that's a criminal. because their are more white criminals in that 100 people than black criminals.

Per capita does not mean everything. Because again.. if you randomly draw.. you are more likely to get a white criminal.

You'll also get more whites than blacks who are noncriminals.

Both per capita and in absolute terms.

And how can you call yourself conservative when you claim blacks are arrested because of racism when even black leaders acknowledge that black people commit a disproportionate number of crimes.

Someone is in denial.

 

[jimbo]

But, is it not true that it's either crime or be homeless then for them?

Are they not choosing crime over abject poverty and their kids living in cardboard shacks?

And, what about these sub-primers' jobs -- aren't they overseas somewhere?

And what's this "ghetto culture" you're talking about? I'm not sure I understand what that is.

(1) Their choices are not homelessness or crime. There is a third choice. Make something of your self. Accept responsibility. Utilize the opportunities available to you.

(2) No they are not. They are choosing crime over using their talents and exploiting the opportunities available to them.

(3) The ghetto culture is the cuture that presumes that there is no way out. The ghetto culture is that culture that has been preached for at least the last few years that the deck is stackes, that whitey is the enemy. Anybody that believes that otherwise is demeaned and everything is done to prove them wrong. Ghetto culture is the belief that if someone steals cigars, cops an attitude with the LEO asking questions and doing his duty, is somehow the righteous one and therefore it is permissible to burn down the businesses of those trying to better themselves by opening their own small businesses in their own neighborhood.

 

[The Minimalist]

(1) Their choices are not homelessness or crime. There is a third choice. Make something of your self. Accept responsibility. Utilize the opportunities available to you.

(2) No they are not. They are choosing crime over using their talents and exploiting the opportunities available to them.

(3) The ghetto culture is the cuture that presumes that there is no way out. The ghetto culture is that culture that has been preached for at least the last few years that the deck is stackes, that whitey is the enemy. Anybody that believes that otherwise is demeaned and everything is done to prove them wrong. Ghetto culture is the belief that if someone steals cigars, cops an attitude with the LEO asking questions and doing his duty, is somehow the righteous one and therefore it is permissible to burn down the businesses of those trying to better themselves by opening their own small businesses in their own neighborhood.

Interesting theory. And all you have to do to prove it is make with the 40 acres and a mule and then pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

 

[jimbo]

Interesting theory. And all you have to do to prove it is make with the 40 acres and a mule and then pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

Last time I checked, there were no mules in Detroit, Chicago, or NYC.

Lots of asses, though.

 

[jaeger19]

You'll also get more whites than blacks who are noncriminals.

Both per capita and in absolute terms.

And how can you call yourself conservative when you claim blacks are arrested because of racism when even black leaders acknowledge that black people commit a disproportionate number of crimes.

Someone is in denial.

Yep.. you are right.. however.. are you looking for non criminals? no..you are looking at whats the likelihood that you will find a criminal. And you are more likely to find a white criminal.,

And how can I call myself a conservative? Quite easy... conservatives.,. real conservatives believe in common sense.. facts and logic. not anger, hate and racial bias.

Lets take your premise.. "per capita their are more black criminals"...

Okay... so what? Seriously.. so what. IF you are really concerned about crime. and who is arrested and stopping crime,,, you don't CARE about "per capita".. you care about WHO IS ACTUALLY COMMITTING CRIME. And the fact is.. more white people are committing crime. FACT.. FACT.. FACT.

now you say.. "well there is more non criminal white people".. yep... SO WHAT? Why do you care if you are concerned about criminals?

This has ramifications for policy.

Say we have our above population. 96 white guys.. 4 black guys. 30 white guys are criminals.. 2 black guys are criminals. Now according to you.. we need to worry MORE about the black folks than the white folks because according to you.. per capita means everything.. and its 50% criminal per capita.

SO.. you.. focus all your police resources on the black community. You have the black folks being stopped.. being frisked.. pissing off the other half of the black community (4 people).. and at the end of the day.. how many criminals do you stop with all that work? 2... that's right 2.. you stop 2 criminals because at the end of the day,, they are a small population.

I on the other hand.. being a conservative.. say wait a minute.. that seems like a total waste of resources. So I use the resources to police more the white folks on average because there are more white criminals. And at the end of the day.. I stop 30 criminals. Because I focused on the number of criminals.. not "per capita" like you did.

I stopped 30 criminals... you stopped 2. Now tell me again how your policy based on "per capita" "means everything"?


So per capita doesn't really mean diddly when it comes to policy and arrests and police work... the only reason it "becomes everything".. is to those that want to make a value judgement based on race. That's really all that statistic is useful for...only "useful" if you are trying to portray a race negatively. And the reality is that its not that useful because you will find that their are other factors,, such as poverty, education, and neighborhood makeup that have a much more causal relationship than the color of ones skin.

The person that's in denial here is you. Concentrating on a statistic that has no real meaning... but yet you hold tight to it...

Remember.. you stop 2 criminals.. I stopped 30.... that's the reality of your position..


Now.. on to the real racism. Yep.. black people commit a disproportionate number of crimes... but still fewer crimes because they are such a much smaller population. Therefore.. for every black person arrested.. two white people almost three white people should be arrested.

That's the statistical fact. However, society is generally not a good evaluator of risk (hence the fear of assault weapons). So.. the black person, particularly the black male generates more fear and more bias.

And this becomes prevalent in the judicial system. Blacks are more likely to be target (obvious studies showing racial profiling). Blacks defendants get longer sentences, the DA;s are less likely to ask for leniency, and DA's are more likely to go for greater charges. (I have provided examples of research on this already in the thread).

These differences between white defendants and black defendants occurred even when education, severity of crime, poverty and prior history were controlled for. So there is no doubt that there is racism in our legal system.

 

[Dayton3]

You might have an argument if you were claiming police resources were infinite.

But they are not infinite.

If you have to stop 30 white people to find four criminals or stop 10 black people to find three criminals, then logically you should focus on stopping the 10 black people.

 

[jaeger19]

You might have an argument if you were claiming police resources were infinite.

But they are not infinite.

If you have to stop 30 white people to find four criminals or stop 10 black people to find three criminals, then logically you should focus on stopping the 10 black people.

Well first.. if you are simply randomly stopping people in order to catch criminals.. then your problem is your technique. Inefficient not to mention a violation of the Constitution.

And that brings up a good point. If you focus only on stopping black people.. because there are fewer black people.. then you will of course find more black criminals.. but meanwhile.. thirty more criminals who are white will continue to victimize the town.

And since you focus on black folks.. and therefore you get more black criminals.. the stereotype that black people commit more crime is continued... even though all sorts of crime is happening in your town but you aren't even trying to catch the white criminals doing it so they go unchecked..

So at the end of the day.. you actually now have more crime because you have focused on a small segment and wasted your resources...

 

[Dayton3]

I am through arguing. '

Someone that has no knowledge of basic statistics, so little that they can say with a straight face (unless he is simply trolling) that

"per capita doesn't matter" and claim that "white people commit far more violent crimes than blacks" when basic FBI statistics say completely otherwise

........then there is no point to debate.

This is like where those black protestors and activists making the ridiculous claim that "cops are out to kill blacks" when official statistics show that police have killed THREE times as many white people as black people in the last year available.

 

[Excon]

you are right, the fact is that more whites are "not committing crimes" .. than blacks.. but that does nothing to deter from the fact that more whites ARE committing crimes than blacks as well. And if you want to solve more crimes.. you have to focus on who the criminals are.

This is your failure to understand that breaking it down by respective population is focusing on who the criminals actually are.
If you take any random two guys one black, and one white, the black guy has a greater change of being a criminal than the white guy is. Period.

As proven above..

The only thing you have proven is a ignorance of the subject.
If you take any random two guys one black, and one white, the black guy has a greater change of being a criminal than the white guy is. Period.

in fact that statistic has little validity when it comes to who is committing crime and should be arrested more.

:doh
Such nonsense. It is about who is more likely to have committed a crime. Not to whom should be arrested more. Arrested more?
That is pretty lame.

As already pointed out, we already know there is more whites than blacks, and as such there should be more whites having committed crimes than blacks.
Should be across all parameters. And that doesn't even hold true.

The fact that by respective population blacks commit far more crimes is more relevant to any discussion of crime than one simply based on sheer unbroken down numbers.


You do not even understand and have continued to show you do not understand what is relevant and what is not.

Actually I did point out what it means.. which is more crime is committed by white people. if your wife is raped in this country.. statistically its more likely to be by a white man. Again.. statistical fact.\

And unfortunately while the police are wasting their time searching and frisking every black man in town, the real rapist gets away.

Prime example of you not understanding and /or being dishonest.
The don't go wasting there time frisking over a rape is just one minor point to your dishonesty, and usually the skin color of the rapist is known, showing you clearly do not understand the crime solving process.

 

[Excon]

Actually it IS the accurate way to view reality especially when it comes to the original poster and who should be arrested.

Wrong.
The stat does not show what you think it shows.
Because the number also says there are more whites than blacks who do not commit crime.
The fact that it also says that shows just how lacking in understanding you are to even suggest such nonsense.
If you take any random two guys one black, and one white, the black guy has a greater change of being a criminal than the white guy is.

If a crime is committed in your town.. its most likely done by a white person. therefore the police should be looking for white criminals MORE than they should be looking at black people.

That's statistical fact.

Wrong.
The stat does not does not lend itself to such use.
You clearly have no clue as to what you speak.

Let me put this another more sarcastic way.

[sarcasm]Hey look folks, jaeger19 has come up with a totally new way to view criminal statistics.
It's a way that criminalist and crime statisticians have never thought of before.
Instead of focusing on who is most likely to have committed a crime, he wants to focus on a totally meaningless unbroken down numbers. [/sarcasm]​

Do you not realize how stupid that is? The overall stat does not translate as you think it does and it is not used that way, as it is meaningless to do so.
Because as already pointed out, it also shows that there are more whites than blacks who do not commit crime.
If you take any random two guys one black, and one white, the black guy has a greater change of being a criminal than the white guy is. Period.

Actually statistically that is very true.. and its very useful.. whats not useful is to use "relative to population"... that's not useful.

Okay... since you don't get it. let me try to explain it to you with a very simply explanation.

Lets say that you have a population of dogs in your town. You have 100 labs in town and 4 cocker spanials.

During the year.. 2 of the cocker spanials get caught getting into the garbage on the street.

20 of the labs are caught getting into the garbage on the street.

So.. according to my statistic.. labs are getting into the garbage much more than the cocker spanials...

according to you.. since their are 100 labs.. and 4 cocker spanials... well then cocker spanials are responsible for more garbage being tipped over.

and that's not true. If the next day, the garbage is tipped over.. its most likely a lab that did it.

You however,, would be busy watching the cocker spanials because the percentage of cocker spanials that got into the garbage was higher.

You would be wasting time looking for bad behavior in the cocker spanial.. when you should be focusing on the most likely subject.. a lab.

:doh
Wrong.
If you take any random two guys one black, and one white, the black guy has a greater change of being a criminal than the white guy does. Period.

Sorry sir but that fact that more whites commit crime is a very valid statistic. And suggesting that one should look at whites is valid and correct.

:doh
You have already been shown why you are wrong.
Learn from it.
If you take any random two guys one black, and one white, the black guy has a greater change of being a criminal than the white guy is. Period.

Nor is the way you are looking at this relevant.

Do you, or do you not understand that the overall breakdown by respective population is not what they use to solve crimes?
Nor is the way you view it either.
They either have evidence and clues or they do not.
They do not sit there and say to themselves: well a black person is more likely to have committed the crime than a white person is, so lets focus on the black person.
And they do not sit there and say well because there are more white people that it is likely a white person has committed this act, (especially as those numbers also reflect that more white folks are not committing crimes.) so lets focus on the white people.
LE simply do not do that. That is not how a investigation happens and why a focus on those numbers is irrelevant.

You apparently do not understand profiling, how it is done or it's usefulness.

 

[jaeger19]

This is your failure to understand that breaking it down by respective population is focusing on who the criminals actually are.
If you take any random two guys one black, and one white, the black guy has a greater change of being a criminal than the white guy is. Period.

Yep... your failure is not understanding that their are far more white criminals. So more crime committed by whites than blacks.

The only thing you have proven is a ignorance of the subject.
If you take any random two guys one black, and one white, the black guy has a greater change of being a criminal than the white guy is. Period

No that only thing I have proven is your ignorance of the subject. Yep you are right.. the black guy has a greater chance of being a criminal... so what? Seriously.. so what?

There are more white criminals.

I tell you you have thirty known criminals in your community. 2 of them are black (and you have 4 black people)... and the rest of the 96 people are white so 28 of them are criminals. Who is more likely to rob you? The black guy.. or the white guy?

.

Such nonsense. It is about who is more likely to have committed a crime. Not to whom should be arrested more. Arrested more?

Actually no its not. Again.. who is more likely to rob you in the above example? The two black guys that are criminals... or 28 white guys that are criminals? You have a greater chance of being robbed by the white guys.

The fact that by respective population blacks commit far more crimes is more relevant to any discussion of crime than one simply based on sheer unbroken down numbers.


You do not even understand and have continued to show you do not understand what is relevant and what is not.

AS I have pointed out.. not its not. You are busy worrying about 2 criminals because 2 out of 4 black guys are criminals in your town.. and completely missing that their are 28 guys out there that are white and might victimize you.

Prime example of you not understanding and /or being dishonest.
The don't go wasting there time frisking over a rape is just one minor point to your dishonesty, and usually the skin color of the rapist is known, showing you clearly do not understand the crime solving process

.

I clearly do understand it. I am sorry that you obviously don't.

 

[jaeger19]

I am through arguing. '

Someone that has no knowledge of basic statistics, so little that they can say with a straight face (unless he is simply trolling) that

"per capita doesn't matter" and claim that "white people commit far more violent crimes than blacks" when basic FBI statistics say completely otherwise

........then there is no point to debate.

This is like where those black protestors and activists making the ridiculous claim that "cops are out to kill blacks" when official statistics show that police have killed THREE times as many white people as black people in the last year available.

You should stop arguing because you really have no knowledge of basic statistics...,

You sir are just too funny... you like to claim that "per capital matters right"... isn't that what you just argued...

Now look at your last sentence.

This is like where those black protestors and activists making the ridiculous claim that "cops are out to kill blacks" when official statistics show that police have killed THREE times as many white people as black people in the last year available.

too funny... if it wasn't so sad for you. You realize that in this example you have used the same statistic that I used rather than pointing out that "PER CAPITA" the cops have killed more black people.

That's right sir.. when it suits you.. suddenly "per capita" didn't matter.

Don't let the door hit your hypocritical butt on the way out.

 

[Excon]

Yep... your failure is not understanding that their are far more white criminals. So more crime committed by whites than blacks.

More dishonesty from you. Figures.

No that only thing I have proven is your ignorance of the subject.

All you have proven is your own ignorance.

Yep you are right.. the black guy has a greater chance of being a criminal... so what? Seriously.. so what?

So what?
This is you again showing your ignorance of the subject.

There are more white criminals.

You are still showing you do not get it.

I tell you you have thirty known criminals in your community. 2 of them are black (and you have 4 black people)... and the rest of the 96 people are white so 28 of them are criminals. Who is more likely to rob you? The black guy.. or the white guy?

This is you not understanding stats and how they are used.

When presented with only two guys, one of each color, the black one is more likely to rob me as he has a .50 chance of being a criminal, while the white guy has a .2688 chance.

It is about who is more likely to have committed a crime. Not to whom should be arrested more. Arrested more?

Actually no its not. Again.. who is more likely to rob you in the above example? The two black guys that are criminals... or 28 white guys that are criminals? You have a greater chance of being robbed by the white guys.

Wrong.
You have a greater chance of not being robbed by a white guy as there are more white guys not committing crimes.
Which is why the stats need to be broken down to be meaningful and relevant.

On top of that, you still fail to understand the insignificance of your argument. That is not how comparisons are done or how crime is solved.

AS I have pointed out.. not its not. You are busy worrying about 2 criminals because 2 out of 4 black guys are criminals in your town.. and completely missing that their are 28 guys out there that are white and might victimize you.

And again, this is you not understanding the stats and their usage.
The likelihood that the white person is a criminal is .2688, while the likelihood that the black guy is a criminal is .50.

The likelihood that the black guy is a criminal is greater.​

With the same two guys the opposite stats say that the likelihood that the white guy isn't a criminal is .6912, while the likelihood that the black guy isn't a criminal is .50.

The likelihood that the white guy isn't a criminal is higher.​

That is how it gets broken down to be relevant.
Both shown that it isn't white guy you need to be more weary of.

I clearly do understand it.

:doh
:lamo:lamo:lamo
No you obviously don't.

 

[jaeger19]

More dishonesty from you. Figures.

More BS from you,, figures

So what?
This is you again showing your ignorance of the subject.

Too funny.... okay you make your case WHY its so important. Go ahead... please explain why I have to worry more about the 2 black guys in my neighborhood with criminal possession records (out of 6 black people in the whole community) and not worry about the 30 white guys in my neighborhood that are registered sex offenders, and /or have a record of violence (out of a community of 300).

Please explain why it "per capita" matters should mean more to me.. than the actual criminals in my area.

Go ahead.. this will be fun.

When presented with only two guys, one of each color, the black one is more likely to rob me as he has a .50 chance of being a criminal, while the white guy has a .2688 chance.

When you live in a community with only two guys.. let me know then you might have something. Until we discover that the black fellow is a police officer.. and the white guy is a gang member.

Please.

Wrong.
You have a greater chance of not being robbed by a white guy as there are more white guys not committing crimes.
Which is why the stats need to be broken down to be meaningful and relevant.

honestly.. that's just plain stupid on your part. I am sorry for you that you cannot see the error of your thinking.

2 black guys in my neighborhood are criminals.. 30 white guys in my community are criminals. Tell me again why its important for me to worry more about the 2 black guys as criminals..; and not the thirty white guys that are.

Man you don't get it... the number of people I run into that are NOT criminals does not matter... its the criminals that I run into that matters...:doh

With the same two guys the opposite stats say that the likelihood that the white guy isn't a criminal is .6912, while the likelihood that the black guy isn't a criminal is .50.

The likelihood that the white guy isn't a criminal is higher.

That is how it gets broken down to be relevant.
Both shown that it isn't white guy you need to be more weary of

.

See and that's the fallacy.

According to you.. I walk into a bar.. and there are two black people at the bar, who are school teachers.. and I see 6 white guys in the bar with prison tattoos.. and you claim I should be careful about the black people.. because they are more likely to hurt me than the 6 guys with prison tattoos. :doh

 

[Excon]

More BS from you,, figures

:naughty
No, the bs is and has been yours all along.

Too funny.... okay you make your case WHY its so important. Go ahead... please explain why I have to worry more about the 2 black guys in my neighborhood with criminal possession records (out of 6 black people in the whole community) and not worry about the 30 white guys in my neighborhood that are registered sex offenders, and /or have a record of violence (out of a community of 300).

Please explain why it "per capita" matters should mean more to me.. than the actual criminals in my area.

Go ahead.. this will be fun.

The case has already been made several times and not just by me. You still are unable to comprehend it.

When presented with only two guys, one of each color, the black one is more likely to rob me as he has a .50 chance of being a criminal, while the white guy has a .2688 chance.

When you live in a community with only two guys.. let me know then you might have something. Until we discover that the black fellow is a police officer.. and the white guy is a gang member.

Please.

The numbers are actual in reference to the the 100 base total that you set forth.
That is the proper breakdown.
Sorry you don't like reality.

Wrong.
You have a greater chance of not being robbed by a white guy as there are more white guys not committing crimes.
Which is why the stats need to be broken down to be meaningful and relevant.

honestly.. that's just plain stupid on your part. I am sorry for you that you cannot see the error of your thinking.

2 black guys in my neighborhood are criminals.. 30 white guys in my community are criminals. Tell me again why its important for me to worry more about the 2 black guys as criminals..; and not the thirty white guys that are.

Man you don't get it... the number of people I run into that are NOT criminals does not matter... its the criminals that I run into that matters...:doh

This is you being dishonest and showing you still do not understand.
I told you that the way you want to reflect things is meaningless and irrelevant because you end up showing that there are more white folks not committing crimes than black folks.

Your argument that more white folks commit crimes is meaningless as a number by itself. It has to be broken down.
You gave us 96 white men and 4 black men for a total of 100.
You said that 28 of the 96 white men were criminals and only two of the four black men were criminal.
The numbers will always shows that the black group has a greater propensity for being a criminal as shown. 50% for a black guy, and 26.88% for a white guy.
You can't escape that.

See and that's the fallacy.

According to you.. I walk into a bar.. and there are two black people at the bar, who are school teachers.. and I see 6 white guys in the bar with prison tattoos.. and you claim I should be careful about the black people.. because they are more likely to hurt me than the 6 guys with prison tattoos.

:naughty
No, that is your fallacy and false representation.
That isn't what I said, nor is it even valid to what you presented.
What you are replying to is a a breakdown of your numbers. Not once did you introduce occupations of any visible characteristics besides being black and being white.
This is nothing but a dishonesty by you.


Like I already told said.

You clearly have no clue as to what you speak.

Let me put this another more sarcastic way.

[sarcasm]Hey look folks, jaeger19 has come up with a totally new way to view criminal statistics.
It's a way that criminalist and crime statisticians have never thought of before.
Instead of focusing on who is most likely to have committed a crime, he wants to focus on a totally meaningless unbroken down numbers. [/sarcasm]​

Do you not realize how stupid that is? The overall stat does not translate as you think it does and it is not used that way, as it is meaningless to do so.
Because as already pointed out, it also shows that there are more whites than blacks who do not commit crime.
If you take any random two guys one black, and one white, the black guy has a greater change of being a criminal than the white guy is. Period.​

 

[US Conservative]

 

[The Minimalist]

There is no necessary contradiction between "you are more likely to be victimized by a black" and "you are more likely to be victimized by a white". Though a given black is more likely to victimize you than a given white (making the unrealistic assumption that your encounters are random selections from their race), the relative unlikelihood that you will encounter a black (and thus the still lower probability that you will encounter a black criminal) makes the conservative obsession with black crime, at the very least, excessive.

 

[Papa bull]

There is no necessary contradiction between "you are more likely to be victimized by a black" and "you are more likely to be victimized by a white".

Those two statements are absolutely and necessarily contradictory. "More likely" is comparative and by comparison, both can't be "more likely". Maybe what you wrote wasn't what you meant?