Who cares if black people commit more crimes?

Which isn't even true. Sure an argument could be made per capita, but why does that even matter? To justify discrimination, as if every American doesn't deserve the same amount of free regardless of race? But my real question is why do we only look at crime from the perspective of race? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to view crime through the paradigm of socioeconomics or education? Probably a better indicator than crime, but what about gender? Despite being only 50% of the population men are arrested 80% of the time. Maybe stores and cops should follow all men around? Sound like a familiar argument? What do you think? How should we analyze criminals?

Interesting look at criminal statistics*
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

*Yes, I'm aware it's Wikipedia but all of the primary sources are there and it's the easiest way to view the statistics.

 

I care as any American should. We have two maybe three generations of blacks that have essentially been wasted. They are either in prison or grew up with abysmal educations and no serious job prospects. Two things need to change, first is to stop this nonsensical War on Drugs in regards to marijuana and the second is to destroy the public school unions power and expand school choice voucher programs as much as possible. If both of those things are not done then nothing will change.

 

Using logic, and treating all suspects and criminals based on person, place and time.

 

Thank you for the Wiki dislamer, we'll let it slide this time.

But I kept following the links and I found myself here. -> http://www.elist10.com/top-10-cities-usa-lowest-recorded-crime-rates/

Since I'm very knowledgeable with most of the top ten safest cities in the USA a few things caught my attention. The safest cities are very WASPy and are heavily Republican.

Now America's most dangerous cities seem to be not so WASPy and are deep blue, are part of Obama's America and extremely heavy Democrat and voted for a community organizer in both 2008 and 2012.

 

Somebody said black. Whatever it is we need to drag Obama into it.

That aside. Those are the kind of places where you get fined or kicked out of your house for planting the wrong kind of grass. The only thing this shows is that rich people don't commit violent crimes. With violent crimes not being a good income that's rather obvious.

Oddly enough none of those cities made this list and none of them match your description. Why? http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-safest-cities-in-the-world-2015-1

 

Perhaps, but the stats should not be kicked under the rug with a shrug.

Homicide
According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008 while making up only 12.6% of the population, with whites 45.3%, while making up 72.4% of the population and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites (per 100,000), and the victim rate 6 times higher (per 100,000). Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.

Youth crime The "National Youth Gang Survey Analysis" (2011) state that of gang members, 46% are Hispanic/Latino, which makes up 16.4% of the population, 35% are African-American/black, 12.6% of the population 11.5% are white, 72.4% of the population and 7% are other race/ethnicity.

 

I'll tell you who, anybody who has to walk through an inner-city neighborhood on the way to work, or back from work, they care.

Of course really rich liberals like Michael Moore don't care, because he lives in a big mansion far away from any of those neighborhoods.

Go take a stroll though some of the neighborhoods in Compton and Detroit, then come back and tell us how the black crime rate doesn't matter.

 

How to analyze criminals? First thing is to understand that while free choice may exist, all choices occur in a context. Race per se is a confounder - it's more a matter of the destructive subculture and counterculture that comes along with it. I would point to poverty, but where people aren't stealing to avoid starvation it's more a matter of culture.

 

Because gang violence is a huge issue in the black community that effects everyone. Everyone SHOULD care. Who do you think you are helping by denying it or trying to "fluff" it?

National Data
According to the FBI SHR data, in 2011 there were 6,309 black homicide victims in the United States. The homicide rate among black victims in the United States was 17.51 per 100,000. For that year, the overall national homicide rate was 4.44 per 100,000. For whites, the national homicide rate was 2.64 per 100,000. Additional information contained in the FBI SHR data on black homicide includes the following.

Gender
Of the 6,309 black homicide victims, 5,452 (86 percent) were male, and 854 (14 percent) were female. The homicide rate for black male victims was 31.67 per 100,000. In comparison, the overall rate for male homicide victims was 7.13 per 100,000. For white male homicide victims it was 3.85 per 100,000. The homicide rate for female black victims was 4.54 per 100,000. In comparison, the overall rate for female homicide victims was 1.81 per 100,000. For white female homicide victims it was 1.45 per 100,000.

Source . . . http://www.vpc.org/studies/blackhomicide14.pdf

 

Nah, no public schools and no vouchers for private schools. Close it all down.

 

Oh blacks commit more crime and most people don't want to associate or live around violent criminals.

If people don't believe blacks commit more crime then I dare them to move to a black ghetto where you can buy a house for 10k (for a reason)...

People care because they don't want to get ripped off, murderd, raped or assaulted.

 

90% of blacks are democrats, blue cities are havens for blacks. Blacks make cities blue.

 

But it's not always this way. I actually live in a mostly black neighborhood full of decent people. Of course I can go a few miles down and be a bit scared. Or I can go back to my almost entirely white childhood town that has no real economy and has turned into a meth town and still be in just as much danger. Something else must be going on.

- - - Updated - - -

If the conservative party would stop being closet racists this might change.

 

Yeah right.... Meanwhile where I live there are no nice black communities - they're all ghettos.

Progressives are the real racists - they keep blacks enslaved in the ghetto and dependent on government while blaming republicans...

Of couse progressives don't even know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) racism actually is.. Criticizing blacks for living off taxpayers is not racism and pointing out that blacks have an asonomical crime rate compared to other demographics is not racism and holing blacks accountable for their actions is NOT racism..

Only a massive idiot would actually buy the "republicans are racist" bull(*)(*)(*)(*) when in reality blacks have been enslaved by progressives.... Progressives need racism to be an issue and they need someone to demonize when they're on their (*)(*)(*)(*)ing soapbox preaching social justice and socialism.

The DNC is a sham, the RNC isn't much better but they're not a bunch of racists - no they're just as authoritarian as the progressives.

I'm sure there are some white trash communities out there but I highly doubt the murder rate in those communities is 10-20x the national average. I can point out some black communities here in Chicago where the murder rate is 75 per 100,000.

I'm not going to ignore that because the politically correct crowed cant handle the facts. If you ask me ignoring those issues just makes them worse...So white progressives are contributing to the violence and nonsense for tolerating it - because god forbid if they say something about it or acknowledge it they may be called a racist.

Geez

 

Because America has ingrained issues with race and apparently no desire to address them.

It makes most sense to look at all the factors involved in crime and general anti-social behaviour but there is much more (short term) political gain and tabloid marketing gain to be had playing the simplistic race game. Until a decent number of Americans actively work towards improving this situation, nothing is going to get any better.

 

I agree with the war on drugs needing to end

I do not agree on school vouchers, let children choose what public school to go to, even give the parents of private schools a tax rebate for what they put in (no more then that)

I think schools need to offer day and night classes too, two sets of students one property to use for it, double the bang for the buck and helps working parents and their children

.

 

Those are a good start but it is also going to be necessary to find a way to fund all public schools adequately and perhaps equally. Funding public schools based on property taxes guarantees the poorest neighborhoods will continue to have the worst schools.

 

I think race enters the equation because of the following.

Homicide
According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008 while making up only 12.6% of the population, with whites 45.3%, while making up 72.4% of the population and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites (per 100,000), and the victim rate 6 times higher (per 100,000). Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.

Youth crime The "National Youth Gang Survey Analysis" (2011) state that of gang members, 46% are Hispanic/Latino, which makes up 16.4% of the population, 35% are African-American/black, 12.6% of the population 11.5% are white, 72.4% of the population and 7% are other race/ethnicity.

I only scanned your wiki link as it was way too long for me. So I can't really say how the DOJ figures compare with Wiki.

I will add that is a black is killed chances are it was done by another black man and if a white was killed, it was probably done by another white.

 

I am currently attending school in the city that ranks 1st or 2nd every year for worst school in the nation. School choice has been a God send for kids that have managed to get in the program. Its one thing if your public schools work but this system is just horrid. Because its a one party city and its basically a smaller version of Chicago with corruption everywhere, there will never be serious reforms.

 

Funding has very little to do with performance, with the possible exception of states like Mississippi that have a smaller education budget than what I spend on socks ever year.

Milwaukee currently spends well above the national average, $14,000+ per kid last time I checked, and yet it consistently ranks at the very bottom of schools nationally. This is also replicated nationwide so its not just a local phenomona. Chicago, Detroit and Washington DC schools also spend at or above the national average and are infamous for for their abysmal performances. California outspends Texas on education and yet Texas is performing better as well. The issue is the pervasiveness of teacher's unions. They need to be squashed or at the very least they need to be neutered like they were here in Wisconsin with Act 10. Act 10 was so successful that the Dems didn't even run on in during the last election even though it was their entire campaign centerpiece during the failed recall against Walker.

Extend school choice and castrate teacher's unions.

 

Spending is by district while your performance ratings are by cities or states. Apples and oranges. Just do yourself a favor and go to a school in a rich district and then go to one in a poor district. Note differences in supplies. Note the quality of the teachers. Then come back and tell me the opportunities are equal.

 

No it doesn't. Kids performed better in the past than they do now in many cities and they didn't have the computers and other stuff we enjoy today to take advantage of. I agree with the quality of teachers but that ties in to the quality of the parents. Bad parents and idiotic teachers unions are the root causes of poor schools. It definitely isn't money that is for sure. One thing these poor performing schools all have in common is that the family structure for most of the kids no longer exists. Parents don't bother to even read the report cards much less make their kids do their homework. Until you have parents who actually care about their kids then there really isn't much you can do to save them. Charter schools and vouchers do help some but no ever kid has that option. Teachers unions are the other half of the equation. They treat the schools as a jobs program and unions are notorious for making it difficult to fire bad teachers.

Act 10 was recently passed in this state and all the districts ended up saving tons of money (some districts literally in the millions) because they were no longer forced to buy the expensive, over priced WEAC (teacher's union) associated health care policies. I shouldn't say all though as three heavily Democratic school districts rushed their contract renewals and pushed them through before the law was enacted and not coincidentally not only did those three districts become the ONLY districts to lose money the following years they even tried to reneg on the contracts and do them over again after they saw all the money being saved by the other districts. Teachers unions literally cost millions of dollars that could have been used on other things.

I went to a small parochial grade school with one computer for each classroom and old ass used textbooks. When I and my fellow classmates eventually attended public high school (I went to private high school for first couple years) we were ahead of many of the other students and that city had the third best in Wisconsin which at the time was the best in the entire nation. The private high school I attended was in Milwaukee and the difference between that school and public high schools was night and day. By the way the teachers at the private high school made significantly less money as well so they weren't fancy expensive teachers with spec ops training. They simply had requirements like parents being required to attend conferences or the kid would be suspended/expelled. Problem kids were immediately removed and put in different classes and shamed (something that we should really adopt that the Japanese use extensively) so they didn't disrupt the learning of the other kids. Yes, contrary to the propaganda from union teachers, private schools do in fact have bad kids they have to deal with as well.

The FACT is that the reason that schools fail is entirely because of lack of social structure for the kids and teachers unions. Both of them need to be dealt with or you end up just throwing money at them and getting no results.

 

Unfortunatly there is very little that can be done about the disintegration of the American family. But funding can and should be made equal across all public schools.

As for teacher's unions. I think you would be hard pressed to find any significant evidence that eliminating unions is going to improve education in poor schools where there is already a major problem finding qualified teachers.

 

Public employees should not have unions, period. Its a recipe for corruption and it has played out that way time after time after time. Teachers unions have destroyed entire districts because of their greed and selfishness.

Chicago spends well above the national average, Detroit does and so on. Funding isn't the problem. Private schools have way less money to work with and manage to consistently turn out a better product year after year after year.

 

Made up numbers and obvious partisanship aside. What does that have to do with what I said?