Up next


Lying With Statistics | Live From The Lair

992 Views
Terrence Popp
Terrence Popp
subs count
2,759
Published on 09 Jun 2020 / In News & Politics

⁣It turns out that even the most trusted name in crime reporting can be compromised by politics.

Uniform Crime Report Table 21: https://archive.ph/JEQ7o

Sandman wants to tell you about the Brave Browser!
Download the Brave Browser today and say goodbye to corporate ads: https://brave.com/san644

Download "The Jericho Files, Book 1: Killer of Killers" by Popp
Free with Prime!
https://www.amazon.com/Killer-....Killers-Book-Jericho

How can you support Popp Culture?
Go to http://www.Redonkulas.com/donate
You can contribute via Patreon, Paypal, SubscribeStar or Cryptocurrency!
Purchase your genuine Redonkulas swag on http://www.PatrolBase.net

Send physical donations to:
Redonkulas.com Productions
29488 Woodward Avenue, Unit 407
Royal Oak, MI 48072
If you write a check, make it out to Second Class Citizen, 501c3
All donations are tax deductible

Check us out on all platforms and social media!
https://www.mgtow.tv/@redonkulaspopp
https://www.brighteon.com/channels/redonkulas
https://www.youtube.com/redonkulaspopp
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/OKW5LabMcxGi/
https://lbry.tv/@REDONKULAS:e
https://www.minds.com/redonkulas
https://www.gab.com/redonkulas
http://www.Redonkulas.com

Show more
22 Comments sort Sort By

Vohawk
Vohawk 4 months ago

So, maybe it was added back in, and I don't know how to read it, but look at the end of the chart. Hispanic or Latino is on the chart now, posted as "Ethnicity" rather than "Race". https://archive.ph/JEQ7o
I hope that helps. Maybe someone smarter than me with tables like this can interpret what that means.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

They have mixed blacks with black hispanics and also whites with white hispanics as if it wouldn't matter whether someone is hispanic. It's not possible to disentangle the data, not even with the help of the last columns where they list hispanics vs non-hispanics.

   1    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

The goals of this calculation:
FIRST: to explain that it's a mistake to multiply 9.2 by population ratios after we calculate how many times more violent incidents do blacks commit against whites compared to whites against blacks,
SECOND: to show how much of that difference in behaviour is due to more specific differences,
THIRD: to explain how are those 3 specific differences calculated,
FOURTH: to show a short version of a similar calculation between blacks and asians,
FIFTH: to list other interesting differences between 4 races (white, black, hispanic, asian). Especially results like
rank -‒- reverse -‒--- relative-damage -‒--- victim -‒‒‒- damage -‒- offender -‒‒‒‒‒-- victim's race harming others
1 -‒‒‒‒ 31.3% -‒‒‒- 3.19 -‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒- white -‒‒‒‒ 94.9% -‒‒-- not-own-race -‒ 29.7%
2 -‒‒‒‒ 78.4% -‒‒‒- 1.27 -‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒- asian -‒‒‒‒ 39.1% -‒‒-- not-own-race -‒ 30.7%
3 -‒‒‒‒ 130% -‒‒‒‒ 0.767 -‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒- hispanic -‒- 49.6% -‒‒-- not-own-race -‒ 64.7%
4 -‒‒‒‒ 678% -‒‒‒‒ 0.147 -‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒- black -‒‒‒‒ 21.5% -‒‒-- not-own-race -‒ 146%
and similar, more detailed calculations, based on data from Table 14 in https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf (I saved the file, so if you don't find it, ask me).
In the last column of the previous list "others" means "not-own-race" in this case and 100% in that column is as much violence against other than their own race as expected by average and population shares.
Direct link to this comment https://www.mgtow.tv/watch/tK6....Ls8nTHWbHXvT&cl=
DO NOT even think about bringing up police violence against blacks as a justification for ANYTHING!
The POLICE KILL MORE WHITES than blacks, and I don't see any assholes burning down police stations and looting stores for that. If you act like blacks are the victims, you're a liar or an idiot.

Data in the above list are organized the same way as in the next list in the FIRST section.
The reason why asians are not the most vicitmized race on the previous list is that asians are not the most targeted victim in all comparisons of races, but whites are. Asians attack whites more likely than whites attack asians. Asians avoid attacking blacks and this is the only reason why they are at the top of the next list.

FIRST
Whites and blacks meet each other the SAME number of times, so the 9.2 times higher rate that will be calculated here is THE FINAL result. You DON'T multiply by race population ratio (63.8% / 12.3%, while we have data above age 12 only and we exclude other than the selected 4 races).
The simplest way to calculate this is dividing the counts of violent incidents of blacks attacking whites by that of whites attacking blacks 547 948 / 59 718 = 9.2.
Blacks attack whites 9.2 times as much as vice versa. Done.

But this result is neither an exception for whites nor for blacks. Whites are overwhelmingly the victim, not the offender, and blacks are overwhelmingly the offender, not the victim, when we compare white or black violence against hispanics or asians.
See especially "relative-damage" in this overview:

Race relationships ranked by aggression relative to the violence received back from the victim's race
rank -- reverse ---- relative-damage ---- victim -––- damage -- offender --- victim's race harming offender
1 -––– 1.12% -––- 89.0 -–––––––––––- asian -––– 140% -––- black -––– 1.57%
2 -––– 10.9% -––- 9.18 -–––––––––––- white -––– 155% -––- black -––– 16.8%
3 -––– 34.6% -––- 2.89 -–––––––––––- asian -––– 25.0% -–-- hispanic -- 8.64%
4 -––– 39.6% -––- 2.53 -–––––––––––- hispanic -- 116% -––- black -––– 45.7%
5 -––– 55.7% -––- 1.79 -–––––––––––- white -––– 42.3% -–-- asian -––– 23.6%
6 -––– 56.8% -––- 1.76 -–––––––––––- white -––– 72.3% -–-- hispanic -- 41.0%
To get "reverse" divide 1 by "relative-damage". The "relative-damage" means "damage" divided by "victim's race harming others", where both "damage" and "victim's race harming others" are NOT property damage but percentage counts of violence DIVIDED BY the population average expected violence. More than 100% "damage" means more targeted violence against that victim by that offender compared to average of anyone against anyone including violence against own race.
More about these rates in the FOURTH and FIFTH section.

SECOND
(1) blacks are 2.27 times as likely violent against anyone as whites are,
(2) blacks prefer to target victims other than their own race 2.16 times as much as whites do
(3) blacks target whites 1.87 times as much as whites target blacks when both already target victims other than their own-race.
This is why blacks commit 9.2 times as many violent crimes against whites as whites against blacks (2.27 x 2.16 x 1.87 = 9.2).

THIRD
To show how these values are calculated first we need to calculate expected average levels of violence based on racial population.
The expected rates are 63.8% and 12.3% of all violent incidents by whites and blacks, resp., since we have data only for over 12 year olds and we restrict this analysis on 4 races only.

(1) level of violence against any race: blacks 2.27 times as likely as whites (2.27 = 1.99 / 0.88).
Whites are 0.88 times as likely as expected to commit violence. Blacks commit violence 1.99 times as much as expected.
The 0.88 comes from the total 4 525 562 of violent incidents of all 4 races, the total 2 534 971 of violent crimes committed by whites, and the population share 63.8% of whites in the analysed population of 4 races over 12 years of age
(2 534 971 / 4 525 562 / 63.8%).
For blacks 1.99 = 1 106 592 / 4 525 562 / 12.3% (from data for over 12 year olds and 4 races only).

(2) preference to target victims other than their own-race: blacks 2.16 times as much as whites (2.16 = 0.732 / 0.339).
Blacks prefer to target victims other than their own-race 0.732 times as much as expected,
whites prefer to target victims other than their own-race only 0.339 times as much as expected.
Every race targets their own race more than expected, but blacks target other races more than whites do.
Blacks attacked victims other than their own-race 710 539 times. That's 64.2% of all 1 106 592 black offender incidents.
Whites attacked victims other than their own-race 310 946 times. That's 12.3% of all 2 534 971 white offender incidents.
The 0.732 for blacks comes from the real 64.2% divided by the expected 87.7%, and for whites 0.339 = 12.3% / 36.2%.

(3) preference to target each other when both already target victims of other than their own-race: blacks 1.87 times as much as whites based on the above calculated results 1.87 = 9.2 / (2.27 x 2.16).
Blacks target whites 1.06 times as much as expected (1.06 = 77.1% / 72.7%) and whites target blacks 0.57 times as much as expected (0.57 = 1.06 / 1.87).
The 0.57 for whites can be calculated like the 1.06 for blacks, but I rather skip the details that would be like the next two calculations:
We get 77.1% from the number of white victims 547 948 of black offenders divided by the number of
non-black victims 710 539 of black offenders (still looking at 4 races only, over 12 years of age), while 72.7% is the expected share of white victims in black violence against all non-black victims (72.7% = 63.8% / 87.7%).

FOURTH
The count 563 of violent incidents of asians attacking blacks is only an estimate for the upper limit. The original survey only listed an upper limit (<0.1%) share of 563 940 attacks against blacks.
The counts of violent incidents of blacks attacking asians divided by that of asians attacking blacks: 50 113 / 563 = 89 AT LEAST. That's NOT a percentage!
Asians are attacked by blacks AT LEAST 89 times as often as blacks by asians. Compare that to 9.2 times as many black on white attacks as white on black.
Blacks are 4.55 times as likely as asians to be violent, blacks are 1.04 times as agressive as asians against other than own-race and blacks prefer to target asians at least 19 times as much as asians target blacks when they already target victims of other than their own-race (4.55 x 1.04 x 19 = 89).
Asians are the least likely to be attacked per capita (0.52 times as much as expected), but they are the only race who is attacked more by a different race (50 113 black offenders) than they are attacked by their own-race (43 917 attacks). Blacks are to blame for this.

FIFTH
Whites are the most attacked race per capita (1.11 times as much as expected), all other races are attacked less than expected: blacks, hispanics and asians 0.90, 0.83 and 0.52 times as much as expected, in that order.

Whites are the only race who is attacked by another race so much that the excess of attacks above average is higher for offenders of another than their own race.
When we normalize to the total of all attacks against anyone, whites are attacked by whites 1.21 times as much as expected (see self-harm in the next list at rank 1) and by blacks 1.55 times as much as expected, see alien harm in the next list (rank 1 in the next list and rank 5 in the 2nd next list).
When we normalize to the total of attacks against whites only by any offender, whites are attacked by whites 1.08 times as much as expected and by blacks 1.39 times as much as expected.
That's two ways to find that in attacks against whites the black offenders exceed average 1.28 times as much as white offenders (1.28 = 1.39 / 1.08 = 1.55 / 1.21).
The difference between these two ways of looking at the data is there only because whites are targeted more than average (1.11 times, as described at the start of this fifth segment). Example: you can get the factor for black on white violence 1.55 from 1.39 x 1.11.

The above results are calculated AFTER we already account for the population size of races and then here we compare their violence to the expected average rates.

For all races, except whites, this result is less than 1 no matter which offender or victim do we choose, see "relative-damage" in the next list.

Race relationships ranked by other than own race aggression relative to own race violence
rank -- relative-damage ---- offender --- victim -––- self-harm ---- alien harm
1 -––– 1.28 -–––––––––––- black -––– white -––– 121% -––––– 155%
2 -––– 0.599 -––––––––––- black -––– asian -––– 233% -––––– 140%
3 -––– 0.598 -––––––––––- hispanic -- white -––– 121% -––––– 72.3%
4 -––– 0.480 -––––––––––- black -––– hispanic -- 241% -––––– 116%
5 -––– 0.350 -––––––––––- asian -––– white -––– 121% -––––– 42.3%
6 -––– 0.170 -––––––––––- white -––– hispanic -- 241% -––––– 41.0%
7 -––– 0.107 -––––––––––- hispanic -- asian -––– 233% -––––– 25.0%
8 -––– 0.101 -––––––––––- white -––– asian -––– 233% -––––– 23.6%
9 -––– 0.0789 -–––––––––- hispanic -- black -––– 580% -––––– 45.7%
10 -–– 0.0359 -–––––––––- asian -––– hispanic -- 241% -––––– 8.64%
11 -–– 0.0290 -–––––––––- white -––– black -––– 580% -––––– 16.8%
12 -–– 0.00271 -––––––––- asian -––– black -––– 580% -––––– 1.57%
The reasons why it makes sense to rank the violence of race relationships like this are that a race who is violent to their own race does not deserve to claim to be the victim of other races, the violence of other races toward them should be compared to how they treat their own people; people are more violent towards their own race than to others, so their self-harm is the standard they live by; if a race is violent they will obviously target their own race and other races more than average, so if they harm everyone they should not complain when another race targets them as much as they target themselves; and if a race is less violent towards themselves they should not be targeted more by other races either.

There is one argument that would be against ranking race relationships like in the previous list: The victims should not be blamed for their own race offenders' violence against them. For this reason, after the next list, I'll rank relationships by received attacks relative to the attacks that the victims' race has done against other races.

The 2nd most agressive combination of races is by blacks again; attacks against asians by black offenders 0.60 times as likely as asian offenders compared to average (0.60 = 2.71 / 4.52 = 1.40 / 2.33) - rank 6 in the list below.
The 3rd most agressive combination of races is against whites again; attacks against whites by hispanic offenders 0.60 times as likely as white offenders compared to average (0.60 = 0.65 / 1.08 = 0.72 / 1.21, calculated like the black vs white comparison above) - rank 15 in the list below.

This means, except for white victims, all other races are targeted less by other races than they target themselves, by far.
The 4th most agressive combination of races is also the blacks' fault; attacks against hispanics by black offenders 0.48 times as likely as hispanic offenders compared to average (0.48 = 1.39 / 2.90 = 1.16 / 2.41) - rank 8 in the list below.
The 5th most agressive combination of races is against whites also; attacks against whites by asian offenders 0.35 times as likely as white offenders compared to average (0.35 = 0.38 / 1.08 = 0.42 / 1.21) - rank 19 in the list below.
The 6th most agressive combination of races is against hispanics; attacks against hispanics by white offenders 0.17 times as likely as hispanic offenders compared to average (0.17 = 0.49 / 2.90 = 0.41 / 2.41) - rank 20 in the list below.

Other relationships are pretty much peaceful, and even the sixth example is quite friendly, ranked at 20 in the next list:

Race relationships ranked by aggression relative to average expectation at 100%
rank -- damage -- offender ---- victim -––-- self-harm
1 -––– 580% -––- black -–––- black -–––- 580%
2 -––– 241% -––- hispanic --- hispanic --- 241%
3 -––– 233% -––- asian -–––- asian -–––- 233%
4 -––– 199% -––- black -–––- anybody -– 100%
5 -––– 155% -––- black -–––- white -–––- 121%
6 -––– 140% -––- black -–––- asian -–––- 233%
7 -––– 121% -––- white -–––- white -–––- 121%
8 -––– 116% -––- black -–––- hispanic --- 241%
9 -––– 111% -––- anybody -– white -–––- 121%
10 -–– 100% -––- anybody -– anybody -– 100%
11 -–– 95.5% -–-- hispanic --- anybody -– 100%
12 -–– 90.1% -–-- anybody -– black -–––- 580%
13 -–– 87.8% -–-- white -–––- anybody -– 100%
14 -–– 83.1% -–-- anybody -– hispanic --- 241%
15 -–– 72.3% -–-- hispanic --- white -–––- 121%
16 -–– 51.6% -–-- anybody -– asian -–––- 233%
17 -–– 45.7% -–-- hispanic --- black -–––- 580%
18 -–– 43.8% -–-- asian -–––- anybody -– 100%
19 -–– 42.3% -–-- asian -–––- white -–––- 121%
20 -–– 41.0% -–-- white -–––- hispanic --- 241%
21 -–– 25.0% -–-- hispanic --- asian -–––- 233%
22 -–– 23.6% -–-- white -–––- asian -–––- 233%
23 -–– 16.8% -–-- white -–––- black -–––- 580%
24 -–– 8.64% -–-- asian -–––- hispanic --- 241%
25 -–– 1.57% -–-- asian -–––- black -–––- 580%

Now, as promised above, since victims should not be blamed for their own race offenders' violence against them, I'll rank relationships by received attacks relative to the attacks that the victims' race has done against other races.
"Reverse" is 1 / "relative-damage". The "relative-damage" is "damage" / "victim's race harming others", where "damage" is the same as in the above list and also same as "alien harm" in the list before the previous one.
In the last column of the next lists "others" means "not-own-race", so the last column does NOT include violence against their own race; 100% in that column means as much violence against other than their own race as expected by average and population shares.
For white victims and black offenders: since blacks attack whites 1.55 times as much as expected (see damage) but whites attack non-whites only 0.297 times as much as expected, black violence against whites is 5.20 times as likely as whites' violence against non-whites compared to average (5.20 = 1.55 / 0.297). In reverse: 0.192 = 0.297 / 1.55, so whites attack others only 0.192 times as likely as blacks attack whites compared to average.

Race relationships ranked by violence relative to the victim race's violence against other than own race
rank -- reverse --- relative-damage ----- victim -––- damage -- offender --- victim's race harming others
1 -––– 0.192 -––- 520% -––––––––––– white -––– 155% -––- black -––– 29.7%
2 -––– 0.219 -––- 456% -––––––––––– asian -––– 140% -––- black -––– 30.7%
3 -––– 0.411 -––- 243% -––––––––––– white -––– 72.3% -–-- hispanic -- 29.7%
4 -––– 0.559 -––- 179% -––––––––––– hispanic -- 116% -––- black -––– 64.7%
5 -––– 0.702 -––- 142% -––––––––––– white -––– 42.3% -–-- asian -––– 29.7%
6 -––– 1.23 -–––- 81.4% -––––––––––- asian -––– 25.0% -–-- hispanic -- 30.7%
7 -––– 1.30 -–––- 76.9% -––––––––––- asian -––– 23.6% -–-- white -––– 30.7%
8 -––– 1.58 -–––- 63.5% -––––––––––- hispanic -- 41.0% -–-- white -––– 64.7%
9 -––– 3.19 -–––- 31.4% -––––––––––- black -––– 45.7% -–-- hispanic -- 146%
10 -–– 7.49 -–––- 13.4% -––––––––––- hispanic -- 8.64% -–-- asian -––– 64.7%
11 -–– 8.65 -–––- 11.6% -––––––––––- black -––– 16.8% -–-- white -––– 146%
12 -–– 93.0 -–––- 1.08% -––––––––––- black -––– 1.57% -–-- asian -––– 146%
As described before, asians attacked blacks so few times that this is only a lower bound (at least 89).

When you compare "reverse" or "relative-damage" between the previous and next lists, notice that you have to shift the decimal point by 2 positions. This is because in the above list the last result was so extreme that the format of the two colums had to be switched.

Race relationships ranked by total alien violence relative to the victim race's violence against other than own race
rank -‒- reverse -‒--- relative-damage -‒--- victim -‒‒‒- damage -‒- offender -‒‒‒‒‒-- victim's race harming others
1 -‒‒‒‒ 31.3% -‒‒‒- 3.19 -‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒- white -‒‒‒‒ 94.9% -‒‒-- not-own-race -‒ 29.7%
2 -‒‒‒‒ 78.4% -‒‒‒- 1.27 -‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒- asian -‒‒‒‒ 39.1% -‒‒-- not-own-race -‒ 30.7%
3 -‒‒‒‒ 130% -‒‒‒‒ 0.767 -‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒- hispanic -‒- 49.6% -‒‒-- not-own-race -‒ 64.7%
4 -‒‒‒‒ 678% -‒‒‒‒ 0.147 -‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒- black -‒‒‒‒ 21.5% -‒‒-- not-own-race -‒ 146%

Whites and asians rarely target victims of other than their own race. If you're not white and you meet a white person, you are probably not worried because you have no justifiable reason to be worried. If you have contradicting experience, change your behavior or move away from the ghetto.
Even though whites are only 0.88 times as much as expected to be violent, they commit the most incidents (56.0%) only because there are so many whites.
But blacks are responsible for the most violence per capita, by far. They are 1.99 times as much as expected to be violent, and they commit 24.5% of all violent incidents.
This is why whites are the most targeted victims per capita.

Blacks are NOT the victims in ratial relations. They are the offenders by such a margin that no one comes close to match them.
When blacks are attacked, the offender is black 6.44 times as likely as expected, hispanic 0.51 times as likely as expected.
Think about that: 6 attacks instead of each 1 expected attack by blacks against blacks based on expectation by population share of blacks and based on the average crime rate that is already raised by blacks.

But this is still not a fair comparison, because we compare the black crime rate to the average that includes the extreme black violence. This makes the black crime rate to SEEM less extreme because the average is raised by blacks.
We should first calculate the expected rates while we EXCLUDE all BLACK violence against anyone, and then compare black violence to the violence of other people.
When we ignore black offender incidents and we compare everyone to that average, whites are 1.02 times as much as expected to be violent, hispanics 1.11 times as much as average and asians only 0.51 times as likely.
Black violence is 2.31 times as likely as expected compared to that level of average violence.
Black violence against non-blacks is 1.69 times as likely as expected by the same standard, whites are 0.35 times as much as expected to be violent against non-whites, hispanics 0.75 times as much as average and asians only 0.36 times as likely.
If we only look at cases when blacks are attacked by non-blacks, the offender is hispanic 2.13 times as likely as expected because whites rarely target blacks, and asians nearly never attack blacks.

But you will not believe the rate (27 times as likely as expected) that we get for black on black crime unless I show you the step-by-step calculation with the numbers of violent incidents in the original document ( Table 14 in https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf ).
These are the counts of violent crimes against black victims:
59 718 by whites, 396 054 by blacks, 44 507 by hispanics and LESS THAN 563 by asians (based on the upper limit <0.1% of total against black victims).
So, the total by non-blacks is 104 788. The 396 054 by blacks against blacks is 3.78 times the total by non-blacks against black victims.

But the expected share is 12.3% black offenders in all violence against blacks if we look only at those 4 races, above age 12.
And since we scaled the total (100%) to only non-blacks who are 87.7% of the population, we have to use 0.123 / 0.877 = 0.140 for the expected rate compared to the real black on black rate (3.78).
3.78 divided by 0.140 is 27. NOT a percentage.

I really want to help you to understand how extreme that result is.
If we expect everyone to be as violent as the average of whites, hispanics and asians, then black offenders commit 27 violent incidents against black victims for every 1 violent incident that we expect them to do against black victims.
Black criminals absolutely destroy their own people.
If the police crack-down would be ruthless, cruel, violent and merciless on black criminals it should be CELEBRATED by black victims of violent crime if it would FINALLY happen.
The same type of calculation (excluding each race from 100% for their own results) would result in 1.27 for whites, 4.85 for hispanics and 5.97 for asians (compared to 27 for blacks).
However, that would NOT be a fair comparison, because the high black crime rate pulls those values down. But it's clearly a good idea to set the expectation to the average of violence by whites, hispanics and asians combined to assess the black crime rate fairly.

Blacks are responsible both for their own victimisation and for attacking other races. It's NOT a surprise that they fill prisons and it's REASONABLE that the police is agressive against them.

Now let's use the same logic to see how black offenders stack up with all not-own-race violence victims.
These are the counts of violent incidents against victims other than the offenders' race:
310 946 by whites, 710 539 by blacks, 422 562 by hispanics and 83 764 by asians.
So, the total by non-blacks is 817 272. The 710 539 by blacks against non-blacks is 0.87 times the total by non-blacks against not-own-race victims.

But the expected share of black offenders is 19.8% in all not-own-race violence if we look only at those 4 races: 19.8% = 10.8% / 54.4% where 10.8% = 12.3% - 1.5% with the following expected shares in all violent incidents: 1.5% = 12.3%² black on black and 54.4% = 100% - (63.8%² + 12.3%² + 17.5%² +6.4%²) all not-own-race victims.
And since we scaled the total (100%) to only non-blacks who are expected to be responsible for the remaining 80.2% = 100% - 19.8% of not-own-race cases, we have to use 0.198 / 0.802 = 0.247 for the expected rate compared to the real black on non-black rate (0.87).
What we get for not-own-race victims from 0.87 / 0.247 is that black offenders are 3.5 times as likely to attack as expected by the average of white, hispanic and asian offenders.

This means, if you're not black and you meet a black person, the likelyhood of being attacked is 3.5 times as high as if you meet a non-black and you're not that person's race (you might be black).

Blacks attack blacks 27 times as likely as expected and they attack other races 3.5 times as likely as the expected level of violence which is the average of white, hispanic and asian offenders.
That's insane!

It's necessary and GOOD to limit the extreme black violence. At this point it's justifiable to use the national guard against them.

@drakcore, posting here to preserve line breaks. His comment is here: https://www.mgtow.tv/watch/tK6....Ls8nTHWbHXvT&cl=

drakcore, that's not how you prove who's racist.
What you calculated just means that blacks are more violent than whites.

It's much more interesting to see whether they PREFER to target whites.

You can't get a reasonable answer by calculating 1 number about 3 different questions.
The 3 questions to answer are:
A: Are blacks more willing to commit crimes than whites?
B: Do white offenders target blacks more than they target others?
C: Do black offenders target whites more than they target others?

And based on the answers to this we get to more important and interesting questions and answers.

ALL OF THE FOLLOWING DATA ARE FROM THE ENTIRE TABLE, NOT RESTRICTED ANY MORE TO THE 4 RACES SELECTED ABOVE.

A:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf Table 12, offender-to-population ratios of violent incidents:
0.8 - ratio of incidents by white offenders,
1.8 - ratio of incidents by black offenders.
0.8 was calculated by dividing the ratios 50.2% white offender share of incidents by 62% of white share of population: 0.502/0.62=0.81 which they rounded to 0.8.
For blacks it was 21.7% and 12%, so 21.7/12= 1.81 rounded to 1.8.
So, the difference between blacks and whites, depending on what is the base, is:
compared to blacks: (1.81-0.81)/1.81=0.55 and
compared to whites: (1.81-0.81)/0.81=1.23.
So, with 100% set to the black crime rate, whites are 55% less likely to commit a violent crime than blacks (0.45 times as likely as blacks,
and with 100% set to the white crime rate, blacks are 123% more likely to commit a violent crime than whites (2.23 times as likely as whites).

A: Yes, whites are less likely to commit violent crimes than blacks do. Less than half as likely as blacks.

B:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf Table 14
Total numbers of violent incidents:
3,581,360 against whites, 563,940 against blacks, 734,410 against hispanics, 182,230 against asians.
Total: 5,061,940
By white offenders:
62.1% of total against whites, that's 0.621*3,581,360= 2,224,025
10.6% of total against blacks, that's 0.106*563,940= 59,778
28.2% of total against hispanics, that's 0.282*734,410= 207,104
24.1% of total against asians, that's 0.241*182,230= 43,917
Total by white offenders: 2,534,824

59,778 against blacks of total 2,534,824 by white offenders is 59,778/2,534,824=0.0236= 2.36%

That's 2.36% compared to the 12% black share of total population, so 2.36/12=0.197 (=1-0.803). That's 80.3% LESS than expected, only 0.197 times as likely as expected.

B is false, by a HUGE margin. Whites do NOT target blacks more than others. And I'll get back to this.

C:
Same table as in B:
Violent incidents by black offenders:
15.3% of total against whites, that's 0.153*3,581,360= 547,948
70.3% of total against blacks, that's 0.703*563,940= 396,450
15.3% of total against hispanics, that's 0.153*734,410= 112,365
27.5% of total against asians, that's 0.275*182,230= 50,113
Total by black offenders: 1,106,876

547,948 against whites of total 1,106,876 by black offenders is 547,948/1,106,876=0.495= 49.5%

That's 49.5% compared to the 62% white share of total population, so 49.5/62= 0.798 (=1-0.202). That's 20.2% less than expected, only 0.798 times as likely as expected.
So, C seems to be false at this first glance. If we don't consider the effect of black on black violence, blacks don't seem to target whites more than others.
But the high rate of black on black crime muddies the numbers of actual racial targeting by blacks, so I'll get back to this based on the next results.

Let's account for black on black violence:
Of total 1,106,876 by black offenders:
396,450 against blacks is 396,450/1,106,876=0.358= 35.8%
That's 35.8% compared to the 12% black share of total population, so 35.8/12= 2.98 (=1+1.98). That's 198% MORE than expected, 2.98 times as likely as expected.

Blacks DESTROY their own community. They target mostly people who are near to them, blacks, because they tend to live near to each other.

Let's compare that to white on white violence:
Of total 2,534,824 by white offenders:
2,224,025 against whites is 2,224,025/2,534,824=0.877= 87.7%
That's 87.7% compared to the 62% white share of total population, so 87.7/62= 1.41 (=1+0.41). That's 41% MORE than expected, 1.41 times as likely as expected.

BOTH white on white and black on black rates are higher than what would be expected if people would live in EVENLY MIXED communities.
So, given that people live in less mixed communities, it's logical that the self-inflicted rates are higher than expected.

But 3 times higher is a bit extreme compared to 1.4. This is why we have to check again excluding own race targets.

So, back to B and C, but asking smarter questions.

WHEN the victim is NOT of the SAME RACE as the offender:
D: Are the victims of white offenders blacks more than others EXCLUDING WHITE victims?
E: Are the victims of black offenders whites more than others EXCLUDING BLACK victims?

D:
Same table, see details at B:
Of total by white offenders 2.36% against blacks (calculated above in B), 87.7% against whites (calculated above in C).
So, 100%-87.7%=12.3% is the share of other than white victims of white offenders.
The 2.36% black victims' share in that 12.3% is the ratio 2.36/12.3=0.192.
Non-whites are 100%-62%=38% of the total population.
The 12% black share in that 38% is the ratio 12/38= 0.316.
Now divide the two ratios (victims/population): 0.192/0.316= 0.608 (=1-0.392). That's 39.2% LESS than expected, only 0.608 times as likely as expected.
This means the same as the result for B, whites are targeting blacks LESS than others.
This might be the result of facts similar to why blacks mostly target blacks. It could depend on how many live in mixed communities.

E:
Same table, see details calculated above in C:
Of total by black offenders 49.5% against whites, 35.8% against blacks.
So, 100%-35.8%=64.2% is the share of other than black victims of black offenders.
The 49.5% white victims' share in that 64.2% is the ratio 49.5/64.2= 0.771.
Non-blacks are 100%-12%=88% of the total population.
The 62% white share in that 88% is the ratio 62/88= 0.705.
Now divide the two ratios (victims/population): 0.771/0.705= 1.094. That's 9.4% MORE than expected, 1.094 times as likely as expected.

This is NOT the same as the result for C.

When we look at OTHER than the same race victims, there is a HUGE difference between blacks and whites.

When whites target victims who are NOT white, blacks are 39.2% LESS likely to be victims than expected.
The opposite is true about blacks.
When blacks target victims who are NOT black, whites are 9.4% MORE likely to be victims than expected.

So, whites AVOID black targets, but blacks SEEK OUT white targets.
This CAN NOT be explained by the racial mixing situation of communities.

Obviously this could be the result of expected loot based on racial profiling, but racist motivation can't be excluded.
Let's test that now.

How does this effect other targets of blacks?
Same table, see details at B:
Of total 1,106,876 by black offenders:
112,365 against hispanics is 112,365/1,106,876= 0.1015= 10.15%,
50,113 against asians is 50,113/1,106,876= 0.0453= 4.53%,
35.8% against blacks (calculated above in C).

As calculated in E, 64.2% is the share of other than black victims of black offenders.
The 10.15% hispanic victims' share in that 64.2% is the ratio 10.15/64.2= 0.158.
The 4.53% asian victims' share in that 64.2% is the ratio 4.53/64.2= 0.0706.

The 17% hispanic share in the 88% non-blacks is the ratio 17/88= 0.193.
The 6% asian share in the 88% non-blacks is the ratio 6/88= 0.068.

Now divide the two ratios (victims/population):
hispanics: 0.158/0.193= 0.819 (=1-0.181). That's 18.1% LESS than expected, 0.819 times as likely as expected.
asians: 0.0706/0.068= 1.038. That's 3.8% more than expected, 1.038 times as likely as expected, but this is comfortably within the rounding error (8.3%) of the population statistic (0.5/6=0.083).

So, blacks victimise hispanics a bit less than expected (but they "make up for it" by their massively higher rate of violence per capita).
This effect is twice as strong as their preference to target whites.

But they don't seem to prefer targeting asians as much as they target whites.
Asians are usually doing well, so if blacks would profile their targets based on loot expectation only, they would target asians as much as they target whites.
This suggests that blacks' targeting of whites might not be based on loot expectation only.
Maybe this could be explained by asians avoiding to live in mixed communities with blacks.
They are smart, and it might be easier for them than for whites to maintain racially exclusive communities.

   1    1
Vohawk
Vohawk 4 months ago

So, let's keep things simple with known facts first and go from there, because you have played some crazy games with the numbers in this report and they are not totally accurate. FACT: Blacks make up 12% of the population according to this 2018 crime report. FACT: Blacks do commit a proportion of crime significantly higher than their population represents. I can't find a recent hard number to quantify it though. Last I heard, it was around 52% per capita. FACT: You REALLY don't like black people! But, you matriculated some data from this report that this report in fact, directly refutes: 1)“Whites and Asians rarely target victims of other than their own race.” Not true. 2) “Blacks prefer to target victims other than their own race 2.16 times as much as whites do.” Not true. Both of these statements can be refuted by simply examining Table 15. 1) Whites target other whites 62% of the time, which coincidentally matches their percentage of the population. That means that they are targeting others 38% of the time. That means they are mostly targeting their own race, which is supported by well-established historical crime stats from the FBI. 2) Blacks target other blacks 70% of the time, which is even more than any other race targets its own and far exceeds its percentage of the population. They target other races 30% of the time. That is not “2.16 times more than whites.” That means they too are mostly targeting their own race, which is supported by well-established historical crime stats from the FBI. 3) Asians target other races a whopping 79% of the time! This is likely because Asians only account for 6.3% of the population. 4) Even Hispanics target other races more than themselves. Although they represent 17% of the population, they target other races 55% of the time, and themselves 45% of the time. Its not a huge difference, but it is more statistically relevant than your black crime story. Maybe you misunderstood some of these numbers, but if not, I will tell you what I have told many people over the years who have sent me hateful political emails, the truth is bad enough to paint a good picture; there is no point in making things up. It only makes us look like bad guys.

   1    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: I appreciate that you took the time to read through that long text, so I will go through your points one by one in separate comments.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: Before I do this, I'll have to fix a minor problem: I just noticed that the totals in Table 14 add up to 99.9%, not 100% for hispanic victims, so I have to recalculate all the data and adjust for that. I do the same adjustment for asians where I used the upper limit 0.1% for asian offenders against black victims. Then I come back to answer your comments.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: The above mentioned 0.1% correction affected many ratios for all 4 races and all counts of incidents against hispanic and asian victims. You quoted only one number: 2.16 and that number was not affected.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: These replies can't be edited, so I wanna make sure I don't make any mistakes and that I explain as clearly as possible what you misunderstood. I wanna make sure that the explanation I give will be concise and clear. And no :) I don't hate black people. I analyse data since that's the only reasonable way to find effective solutions.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: You misundertood both what Table 15 shows and also what I calculated, and also, you thought I calculate the same thing as Table 15. That's not what I did. Table 15 does not analyze what I analyzed in the parts that you quoted from my comment. So, it makes no sense to compare Table 15 to what I calculated. You misunderstood what I did. I'll explain in detail what I calculated in another reply. Here I only explain what Table 15 does and how you misunderstood what it does. Take the numbers from Table 14 for black offenders: Blacks attacked white victims 547 948 times. That's 15.3% of all 3 581 360 white victim incidents. Blacks attacked black victims 396 450 times. That's 70.3% of all 563 940 black victim incidents. Blacks attacked hispanic victims 112 365 times. That's 15.3% of all 734 410 hispanic victim incidents. Blacks attacked asian victims 50 113 times. That's 27.5% of all 182 230 asian victim incidents. Blacks attacked these 4 race victims 1 106 592 times. Now add the NON-BLACK counts. Blacks attacked not-own-race victims 710 539 times. That's 64.2% of all 1 106 592 black offender incidents. (These last 2 statement are in my original comment.) You wrote "Blacks target other blacks 70% of the time" and obvioulsy that's based on the misunderstanding of both Table 14 and Table 15. That 70% is the 396 450 black on black divided by all 563 940 black victims BY ANY offender, NOT divided by all 1 106 592 black offender incidents. Not what you thought. This is the MAIN reason why you thought I was wrong. Now, to your other misunderstanding - the first section of Table 15 is NOT what I calculated. That's not interesting. I do NOT search for the answer to "how much of the total count of violent incidents against a race is done by their own race or other races", which Table 15 calculates in the first section: "Percent of violent incidents committed by offenders" (same or other race than victim). That information does NOT explain what I explained. I do NOT even search for the answer to "how many times more than expected is a race attacked by their own race, compared to all attacks against that victim by any offender race", which Table 15 calculates in the last section's 1st column: "Offender of same race to population of same race". Although, I calculated that number for black victims only. In Table 15 they got 5.8 becasue they use data including "multiple offenders of various races" and "other" offenders from Table 14. As I repeatedly explained, I use data of the 4 KNOWN offender races EXCLUDING the last 2 columns in Table 14, but still, my result (6.44) for blacks is very close to the 5.8 they got in Table 15 because "other" and "multiple offenders of various races" account for a small percentage of attacks. You'll find this in my original comment searching for this: "When blacks are attacked, the offender is black 6.44 times as likely as expected" and also this "6 attacks instead of each 1 expected attack by blacks against blacks".

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: I'll explain first the 2.16 I calculated for blacks vs whites, because this will help you to see why Table 15 does NOT look at the same question I asked myself. What I explained with this number is ONE MORE step of comparison AFTER a similar calculation as in Table 15. Before I calculated that ADDITIONAL comparison, the numbers I used for that were ALSO DIFFERENT from what Table 15 does. So, first I have to explain that core difference, and then I can explain the additional level of comparison. Table 15 looks first at the TOTAL of attacks against ONE VICTIM race by ANY OFFENDER, then calculates shares of that total by offenders. Before I calculate that 2.16 I look first at the TOTAL of attacks BY ONE OFFENDER race, then calculate shares of that total against victims. This is why it makes no sense to compare ANY PART of your quotes from my comment to Table 15. Now I'll have to explain this in more detail before I can explain what that 2.16 is. Search for this in my original comment: "(2) preference to target victims other than their own-race" to see a step-by-step calculation to understand the details. In that part, look what comes after "Every race targets their own race more than expected, but blacks target other races more than whites do". The 64.2% there is NOT about the same question as Table 15 answers in the first section for blacks where they get 70.3% instead of my 64.2%. This difference is NOT what I explained before, that I look at 4 race offenders and they add data of "other" and "multiple offenders of various races". Their 70.3% in the 1st column and 29.7% in the 2nd column add up to the TOTAL COUNT AGAINST BLACK victims as 100%. My 64.2% is the black against non-black share of the TOTAL COUNT BY BLACK offenders as 100%. For whites I got 12.3%, where Table 15 got 62.1% in the 1st column and 37.9% in the 2nd column. Obviously NEITHER is what I calculated. Their 62.1% and 37.9% add up to the TOTAL COUNT AGAINST WHITE victims as 100%. My 12.3% is a share of the TOTAL COUNT BY WHITE offenders as 100%. In Table 15 they ask "how much of the TOTAL AGAINST WHITE victims". I ask "how much of the TOTAL BY WHITE offenders". They ask "what share of that is BY WHITE offenders". I ask "what share of that is AGAINST NON-white victims". In the next column of Table 15 they ask "what share of that is BY NON-white offenders" and in the row for blacks "what share of that is BY NON-black offenders". In Table 15 there is no way to ask the question I'm asking. They CAN'T ask "how much of that is AGAINST NON-white victims" in the row for white victims because that row contains data about white victims ONLY. Neither the base (100%) nor the share (x%) are the same in my question and the question that Table 15 answers. It's a completely different question. This is what you misunderstood. For whites in Table 15 the 100% is 3,581,360 against white VICTIMS by ANY race OFFENDER, 62.1% of that is BY WHITE OFFENDERS and 37.9% BY NON-white OFFENDERS. For whites in my calculation of 12.3% the 100% is 2,534,971 by white OFFENDERS against ANY race VICTIM, and 12.3% of that is AGAINST NON-white VICTIMS. For blacks in Table 15 the 100% is 563,940 against black VICTIMS by ANY race OFFENDER, 70.3% of that is BY BLACK OFFENDERS and 29.7% BY NON-black OFFENDERS. For blacks in my calculation of 64.2% the 100% is 1,106,592 by black OFFENDERS against ANY race VICTIM, and 64.2% of that is AGAINST NON-black VICTIMS. The expected share of what Table 15 calculated for blacks is 12% in the 1st column and 88% in the second, so they divided 70.3% by 12% to get 5.8 and then 29.7% by 88% to get 0.3. The expected share of what I calculated for blacks is 87.7% (the NON-black population ratio in ONLY 4 KNOWN RACES), so I divided 64.2% by 87.7% to get 0.732. The expected share of what Table 15 calculated for whites is 62.3% in the 1st column and 37.7% in the second, so they divided 62.1% by 62.3% to get 1.0 and then 37.9% by 37.7% to get 1.0. The expected share of what I calculated for whites is 36.2% (the NON-black population ratio in ONLY 4 KNOWN RACES), so I divided 12.3% by 36.2% to get 0.339. Now we have done the comparison that is at the same level in my calculation as in Table 15, and how these are answers to different questions. Table 15 answers that OF ANY race OFFENDER attacks against whites, most are BY WHITE offenders and few are BY NON-white offenders, which is EXPECTED because there are 62.1% whites, so 62.3% white and 37.9% NON-white offenders is VERY CLOSE to what we expect, 1.0 times as much as expected. Table 15 answers that OF ANY race OFFENDER attacks against blacks, most are BY BLACK offenders and very few are BY NON-black offenders, which is UNEXPECTED because there are only 12% blacks, so 70.3% black offenders is WAY TOO MUCH, 5.8 times as much as expected, and 29.7% NON-black offenders is VERY FEW, 0.3 times as much as expected. I calculated that OF ANY race VICTIM (1,106,592) attacks of black offenders, MANY (710,539) are AGAINST NON-black victims, but a LITTLE LESS THAN EXPECTED since there are 87.7% NON-blacks, so 64.2% of NON-black victims of all victims by black offenders is 0.732 times as much as expected. I calculated that OF ANY race VICTIM (2,534,971) attacks of white offenders, VERY FEW (310,946) are AGAINST NON-white victims, FAR LESS THAN EXPECTED since there are 36.2% NON-whites, so 12.3% of NON-white victims of all victims by white offenders is EXTREMELY few, 0.339 times as much as expected. Table 15 does NOT make an ADDITIONAL COMPARISON beyond this. BUT I DO: I ask the question, how do these last two results compare to each other. How many times more is 0.732 compared to 0.339? And it's 2.16. So, what does this number mean? Looking at attacks by ONE offender race against ANY victim as the total 100% for that offender, how much of that is against OTHER victims that are not the race of the offender, and THEN COMPARE two OFFENDERS REAL-TO-EXPECTED rate of NOT-own-race-victims: HOW MANY TIMES is the REAL- TO-EXPECTED rate of black offenders higher than the REAL-TO-EXPECTED rate of white offenders? Black offenders attack non-blacks 0.732 times as often as expected. That's about 3 attacks for each 4 expected attacks against NON-BLACKS. White offenders attack non-whites 0.339 times as often as expected. That's about 1 attack for each 3 expected attacks against NON-WHITES. In common terms: blacks 9 instead of 12 expected attacks, whites 4 instead of 12 expected attacks. I calculate 9/4 = 2.25, and with the more accurate numbers 2.16. So, of all attacks against any race by black offenders compared to all attacks against any race by white offenders, blacks attack TWICE as much as whites do COMPARED TO THE EXPECTED against OTHER than their own race. Blacks PREFER to attack other races TWICE as much as whites prefer to attack other races. I know why this is complicated to understand. You are not thinking about the same thing I do. I'm NOT asking the FIRST level of comparison: "what share of all black offender attacks are non-black victims" OR "what share of all white offender attacks are non-white victims". I'm ALSO NOT asking the SECOND level of comparison: "how many times as much as expected is the share of non-black victims in all black offender attacks against any race" OR "how many times as much as expected is the share of non-white victims in all white offender attacks against any race". I'm asking the THIRD level of comparison: "how many times higher is the SECOND level rate of blacks than the SECOND level rate of whites". The FIRST level is heavily skewed by the different population sizes. The second level cleans that up, but it does NOT compare different offenders to each other. It calculates rates of offender races separately (or in Table 15 victim races separately). The example of the 9 black offender attacks and 4 white offender attacks (BOTH INSTEAD OF 12 EXPECTED attacks) against other than their race should make this easy to understand. That's the SECOND level. Then we can divide 9/4 (or more accurately 0.732/0.339) to get the THIRD level comparison of apples to apples. I made no mistake. You misunderstood both what I did and what Table 15 does, and you didn't understand that I do a third level of comparison.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: I have an idea that might make this easy. You wrote "Blacks target other blacks 70% of the time, which is even more than any other race targets its own and far exceeds its percentage of the population. They target other races 30% of the time." Probably you'll be able to understand easily what you're doing wrong if you do this: Focus on the NON-black part of what you wrote. The 30% is NOT about blacks targeting other races. It's about other races targeting black victims. That's what Table 15 does, not what you thought. Did this help to understand it?

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: You wrote "Whites target other whites 62% of the time, which coincidentally matches their percentage of the population. That means that they are targeting others 38% of the time. That means they are mostly targeting their own race, which is supported by well-established historical crime stats from the FBI." Same mistake as you did with blacks. The 38% is NOT about whites targeting other races. It's about other races targeting whites. Both Table 14 and 15 are organized by VICTIMS cases so that 100% is any offender against ONE race of VICTIMS.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: You wrote "Asians target other races a whopping 79% of the time" Same mistake as before, you need to replace "target" by "are targeted by", additionally to a typo I assume (75.9% in Table 15).

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: Blacks offenders account for more attacks against asians than asians against asians BTW. And asians NEVER attack blacks, see Table 14 victim row blacks and offender column asians <0.1% of all attacks against black victims.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: "Even Hispanics target other races more than themselves. Although they represent 17% of the population, they target other races 55% of the time, and themselves 45% of the time." No, again, use "are targeted by" instead of "target". Hispanics are targeted by other races in 54.6% of all attacks against hispanic victims. BTW, take a look at the hispanic victim row in Table 14 and look at the column of black offenders. 15.3% of all attacks against hispanic victims are by black offenders. Yup. It's insane. It's more than half of white offenders' share against hispanics. Search "Race relationships ranked by aggression relative to average expectation at 100%" in my original comment. Rank 8 black offenders, rank 20 white offenders, both against hispanic victims. Rank 8 clocks in at 116% and rank 20 at 41% of expected violence. So, blacks exceed expectation set based on population shares, and whites are far less violent against hispanics than expected.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: Now about this part "Maybe you misunderstood some of these numbers, but if not, I will tell you what I have told many people over the years who have sent me hateful political emails, the truth is bad enough to paint a good picture; there is no point in making things up. It only makes us look like bad guys." Always, always, always be humble enough to expect that you made a mistake before you accuse someone of being immoral. Ask questions. Don't jump into conclusions. Especially not about people's ethics.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: Now this "Blacks do commit a proportion of crime significantly higher than their population represents. I can't find a recent hard number to quantify it though. Last I heard, it was around 52% per capita." Table 14 doesn't allow us to see what share do black offenders have on the "multiple offenders of various races" column, so I can only calculate an estimate that is most likely a reasonable LOWER BOUND to their share of the total 5,061,940 of all recorded cases. I already calculated in one of my replies to you that blacks attacked the 4 listed race victims 1,106,592 times. That's 21.9% of all violent incidents. Their population share is 12% in this data set, so 0.219/0.12=1.825 is how many times they exceed expectation. I calculated 1.99 when I used only data of the 4 listed races without the last 2 "unknown offender" columns. So, blacks are roughly twice as violent as expected IF WE COMPARE them to the average of the population where the total includes black violence. The problem with that is described at the end of my original comment. Since blacks are by far the most violent race, they pull the average up, so it's dishonest to compare them to that average. If we compare blacks to the average of the other 3 races (white, hispanic, asian) we get 2.31 instead of 1.99 or 1.825. They are more than twice as likely as the average of whites, hispanics and asians to be violent.

   0    0
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

@Vohawk: Now this "You REALLY don't like black people!" Actually, TheRareBreedTheory is one of my favourite channels, Dave Chapelle one of my favourite comedians, I love hip-hop and so does my brother, and I despise my father for being a racist. Also, if you think about the numbers I listed here, 1,106,592 violent crimes by roughly 32 million people (I guess the black population above 12 years of age) is about 0.03458 violent crimes per capita per year. That's 1 of 29 people commiting a crime per year. How about the other 28 of those 29 people? They dindu nuffin. It would be plain stupid to generalize and hate the innocent ones for the crimes of the cunts. BUT this does NOT mean that it's okay to sweep under the rug what the cunts did. They need to be hunted down asap. They fuck up both their own community and other races around them.

   0    0
Vohawk
Vohawk 4 months ago

@MrA_H0Ie: Okay.

   0    0
WaylanderTheSlayer
WaylanderTheSlayer 4 months ago

As has been said for years &quot;Lies, damn lies and statistics &quot; manipulation will get whomever is paying, the answer they have paid for.... Government always pays the most for manipulators... We must be very wary of corruption from the deep state, hopefully The Lord God Emperor Trump will drain the swamp fully...

   0    1
Codexman
Codexman 4 months ago

In any society there must exists mechanisms that ensure that the values of that society propagate. Usually this is done through the institutions that the society deems important. The base and underlying values are normally propagated in the family structure whatever that is. When you have a vacuum chaos and disorder soon take over. Mr. Popp, I concur 100% that the absence of a strong and engaged father in the home is one of the primary reasons for the decay we see today.

   2    1
drakcore
drakcore 4 months ago

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf
Can start on page 13.

white(victim instances) 3,581,360 of which 15,3% where black offenders.
So 15,3% of 3,581,360 is 547,948.08
And
black(victim instances) 563,940 of which 10,6% where white offenders.
so 10,6% of 563,940 is 59,777.64

So there were 547,948.08 violent crimes from blacks against whites while 59,777.64 violent crimes against blacks by whites.
Therefore 547,948.08 / 59,777.64 = 9,166 times or 916% times more for blacks to commit violent crimes against whites as whites would to blacks.
Then based of racial percentages and totals in the USA.
Whites : 171,493,180
Blacks : 33,132,390
So there is 5,17 times the amount of whites than blacks, yet whites are victims of blacks by 916%. Now multiple 916% by 5,17.....

   2    1
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 4 months ago

I just tried to post a really long comment here... But these reactions can't do line breaks. I think it'll be better if I link it... https://www.mgtow.tv/watch/tK6....Ls8nTHWbHXvT&cl=

   0    1
BigBen6969
BigBen6969 5 months ago

Divorce and the removal of Dad is the cause for so much Garbage we are going through in the USA today and everyday!

   4    1
Subverted Group
Subverted Group 5 months ago

Two possibilities: 1) The Hispanics have suddenly become white over the past decade; or 2) MS-13 has been excluded because 13 is one of those unlucky numbers.

I do take statistics seriously. We need to pay attention to the bell shaped curve and standard deviation (who is more likely to commit crimes against blacks -- blacks or whites within a standard deviation? -- just sayin').

In the hands of libtards, I don't really don't trust any of the statistics they vomit up because they lie harder than my 11 year old cat sleeps... not that the Republicans are suddenly doing any better. We had the 2016 house that did nothing under Paul Ryan, paving the way for Democrats to take over for endless impeachment. Neither party has done its job -- only a few people are really trying or so it seems. Mitch McConnell has become useless.

COVID-19 (statistics gone wild with badly flawed models), unemployment (which statistics are under represented), the plunge of the economy (not well represented by statistics), riots (over statistically insignificant events), looting (for which I have no adequate words) and worst of all Biden is ahead in the polls by 14 points -- the most useless employment of statistics ever.

But it's not about the statistics. It's about the people who've manipulated them.

And they are garbage humans, no matter how few or how many there are.

   3    1
anonmachina
anonmachina 4 months ago

anonmachina 0 seconds 'The Hispanics', 'Latinos', are designations created by the simple-minded in an attempt to project different groups of people from different countries into one category. Having failed to create that in the minds of many, the category was removed from the census, leaving the selections of 'White' or 'Black' for individuals from countries where Spanish is the native language. Even the designation of 'White', in particular, is a gross generalization, when one dissects the numerous peoples that elect said designation (Italian-American, Italian, Greek-9American, Greek, German-American, German, and so on). Unfortunately, the masses have become accustomed to viewing the World in Black and White.

   0    0
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 5 months ago

Terrence: "statistics doestn earn money"
LOOKS AT SALARY OF DATA SCIENTIST AND FREAKS THE FUCK OUT

   1    2
SOUKadath
SOUKadath 5 months ago

"I can give you any result you want. What's it worth to you?"

   1    1
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 5 months ago

@SOUKadath: Thats not how statistics works, but ok layman gonna be layman...

   1    2
SOUKadath
SOUKadath 4 months ago

@Lucifer333: Actually it's a quote from a Don Henley song, The Garden of Allah, making fun of how people massage statistics to do whatever they like.

   0    1
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 4 months ago

@SOUKadath: you cant massage stats, you can lie about it to ppl who dont understand stats, that happens every day

   1    2
SOUKadath
SOUKadath 4 months ago

@Lucifer333: And it's STILL a line from a Don Henley song.

   0    0
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 4 months ago

@SOUKadath: Ooh, I thought you agreed with it, mokey))

   1    1
doczg88
doczg88 5 months ago

Left = Lies
Right = Facts

   4    1
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 5 months ago

Left= lies , Right = lies , God= truth , nah ai am joking dude, I am hardcore atheist

   3    2
Subverted Group
Subverted Group 5 months ago

@Lucifer333: Ah... I'm sorry. You are undoubtedly a good person and funny too. It's just that you're half the Devil you need to be!

   0    1
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 5 months ago

@Subverted Group : I got demoted because because i left my fork outside during a mission to buy some Democrat votes, but.. it seemed they didnt have a soul to sell...so returned to hell emptyhanded

   1    2
Subverted Group
Subverted Group 5 months ago

@Lucifer333: Ah, I'm sorry. That's the most depressing story I've heard all week. Wish you well and better luck next time! Don't give up!

   1    1
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 5 months ago

@Subverted Group : Even worse then Floyd getting killed? His soul is chillen with big pappa smurf now))

   0    2
BlackPilledBeltMonkkido

@Lucifer333: He's not dead, he's alive. The whole thing was staged because the Freemasons invaded Minnesota and all over the world.

   0    1
Subverted Group
Subverted Group 5 months ago

@Lucifer333: Given that George Floyd was an ex-con who served 5 years on a felony, had Fentanyl in his system, was buying menthol cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 (provided by the Chinese, perhaps?) not seeing him as either a hero or example, but whatever. I did however wanted to know about accommodations down there when an angry rioting mob kill me: Are there apartments? Would I live in a cave? Or... would it be just like earth is now with all the craziness and instability, mobs, looting, Income Tax, boring job, food shortages, inflation and corrupt leaders that lie? Any real difference?

   2    1
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 5 months ago

@Subverted Group : you know they say the grass is always greener... whell in hell, grass is a social construct, so it can be as green as you want it to be.... hell is total anarchy except for big pappa laying the laws of hellish-physics..., so we dont pay taxes, but also no cops (less for some ex-coppas who where were refused entry to "the other place that cannot be named"). Its pretty chill (pun), if you can get someone to sell his soul to you, you can feed on it for some millenia,.. when Biden kicks it, it will be happy hour for the next thousand years in hell... so not a bad deal. Everyday is interesting, imagine singing hyms on some fucking cloud for all eternaty, I would kill myself

   0    2
Subverted Group
Subverted Group 5 months ago

@Lucifer333: Thanks for the update. What you describe is the Seattle Capital Hill Free Zone. Is there Light Rail from Hell to there? Seems like an opportunity if there isn't. Would love to have the franchise.

   1    1
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 5 months ago

@Subverted Group : Just discusses this "hyperloop to hell" H2H with big pappa smurf, he likes it. You do need to sacrifice a small kitten as payment token though, but looking at your "can do" attitude, not going to be a problem

   1    2
Subverted Group
Subverted Group 4 months ago

@Lucifer333: No, I am a charter member of LOFA -- Leave Our Felines Alone. Hopefully, alternatively, he'd accept a virgin sacrifice? Problematic, for sure because there aren't any virgins these days, but hope some substitute will do. And don't suggest puppies. There would be such a backlash. You know how many people claim that emotional support animals? It's a nightmare! Otherwise H2H is a go. We just have to contact Elon Musk to solve the problems with Hyperloop, since, right now, it's a non-starter.

   1    1
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 4 months ago

@Subverted Group : Oh no worries, if she is [b]orn [a]gain [v]irgin, it will also work, but in that case , sacrifice 2 slu... uuuh i mean, "b.a.v's", ... hey did we just invent a new acronym "BAV"s demn

   0    2
Subverted Group
Subverted Group 4 months ago

@Lucifer333: We finally settled on getting the kitten neutered, so we're all good to go.

   1    1
Subverted Group
Subverted Group 4 months ago

@Lucifer333: It looks like big papa smurf is having difficulties. He's falling behind. Governor Cuomo has killed over 10,000 seniors in nursing homes and papa smurf can't keep up. Nancy Pelosi has far surpassed his evil. CHAZ wasn't his idea. He's severely depressed. Which is good for me, since it puts me in an excellent position to negotiate.

   0    1
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 4 months ago

@Subverted Group : early arrivels bro, like some month ahead of schedule, no biggi , happens also when a vulcano erupts or a cyclone event, but not all seniors were destined for hell, although a lot of those boomers where, we love greedy ppl whole stolen their childrens ppl, sucking their souls is like eating donuts, delicious,

   0    2
Lucifer333
Lucifer333 4 months ago

@Subverted Group : my bro, once a deal is singed in blood, no renegotiations, thats just how we roll

   0    2
wayfarer
wayfarer 5 months ago

Popp, it looks like the UCR doesn't brake down arrests for whites in the first column because it's broken down further in the report - they show the total "white" and then it's broken down into Hispanic and non-Hispanic.

Check out the 2017 UCR at FBI web site:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t....he-u.s/2017/crime-in

Table 43A, scroll to Total Arrests/Ethnicity

   1    1
BlackPilledBeltMonkkido

You can't argue with the facts. It is what it is. Just learn from the mistakes and get better.

   0    2
BlackPilledBeltMonkkido

You know the thing about biological science, no human/humanderthal are ever born a hermaphrodite unless its out of incest.

   1    2
CoachDeano
CoachDeano 5 months ago

I suspect Hispanic is missing because it reduces the ratio to 1:1 W vs 2:1 B
if Hispanic is separated it becomes
0.66:1 W, 1:1 H, 2:1 B
or B = 3 times W (Not 2)
just saying....

   1    1
John_Doe
John_Doe 5 months ago

Know what else is missing from the UBR?

WHOLE FUCKING STATES!!!

I once debated someone in a YouTube comments section regarding crime stats compared between Arizona, California, and Nevada. I had to fall back on state-level Dept. of Justice stats for California and Nevada. Why? Because they're NOT listed on the UBR! Go ahead and check it for yourself (scroll down to the "State Tables, Offense by Agency" table: https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2018/tables/data-tables ).

What's more is I did a quick tally just now. There are only 40 of 50 states represented on that table; 10 states aren't even reporting! Hmmm, I wonder why...

   3    1
Sirius
Sirius 5 months ago

Popp - try the FBI.
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr

   0    1
Mrod
Mrod 5 months ago

Hispanic is not a race. They could be black, white, indigenous American, or anything in between. Their commonality is that they derived from a Spanish speaking country. That is it.

   4    1
anonmachina
anonmachina 4 months ago

Races do not exist. What exists are deviations--subgroups--of species, each deviation an adaptive response to the respective environment over a protracted period sufficient to affect environ-specific physical traits. (Provided 'modern transportation' exists for as long as the humans exist, the distinct physical traits may become.harmonized into a more cohesive, common, whole).

   0    0
AlexCaz75
AlexCaz75 5 months ago

What do you mean you are not on YouTube anymore?

   0    1
Nortmas
Nortmas 5 months ago

It looks like Latino or Hispanic is listed under 'Ethnicity" and not "Race". Maybe that;s where the discrepancy is. There is a slider at the bottom of the table you have to move on the website to see it.

   2    1
biochemmolgen
biochemmolgen 5 months ago

I've noticed that in some instances, Hispanics are classified as White.
i.e.: White hispanic/White non-hispanic

   4    1
doczg88
doczg88 5 months ago

To fool the White Americans that nothing is happening.

   3    1
biochemmolgen
biochemmolgen 5 months ago

@doczg88: Don't forget that they're also prepping their next scapegoats; the Columbus day outrage is a good indication of what's coming down the pipes.

   1    1
sithsith
sithsith 5 months ago

Terrence Poop you are a great guy, cheers from France , always keep your good work sir !!

   5    1
Sentient_Of_Truth
Sentient_Of_Truth 5 months ago

LYSDEXIA

   4    0
PepeSilvia
PepeSilvia 5 months ago

There might be a reason for the discrepancy. There are millions of cases of identity theft that are tied to criminal enterprises which allegedly profit from unlawful immigration. Last time that i checked, there were about 2.3 million pending cases of stolen social security numbers being used for this purpose and over 36 million cases that have been solved in the last couple decades that were stolen for this purpose. This is kind of a difficult issue because among women deported, 80% report being violated by those who brought them in illegally or harbored them knowing that they could not reasonably go to the police. There are likely millions of people living in the US illegally in what in many ways can be thought of as a pseudo hostage situation for a quite a few of them. There are a lot of leftist run cities that are providing harbor and effectively enabling the perpetrators of that 80% stat which exacerbates the problem a lot. It is understandable that the government would chose to not disclose these numbers in the uniform crime report until some kind of solution can be figured out. With millions already here and being exploited, with a still largely unsecure border and so many people unknowingly, albeit actively, enabling some of the most dangerous international criminals, it should come as little surprise that this would be intentionally left out of the report. It also kind of explains why it is taking so long to find a practical solution to such a large problem.

   2    1
MrA_H0Ie
MrA_H0Ie 5 months ago

None of this is a valid reason to pool statistics of different groups as if they would be white (no matter hispanic or not) or black (same again). The data that are available should be disclosed WITHOUT pooling.

   0    2
Show more

Up next