PC Victim William Bennett

[Berzerker]

Boris, we already know blacks are more focused on. And that article leaves out adult crime?

Assault. According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, African Americans report being in a physical fight at a similar rate (36.5%, versus 32.5% for whites), but were arrested for aggravated assault at a rate nearly three times that of whites (137 per 100,000, versus 48 per 100,000).

They are two separate offenses, aggravated is much more than just a fistfight that lasts a minute.

Weapons. According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, in 2001 whites and African Americans reported similar rates of carrying a weapon (whites 17.9%, African Americans 15.2%), and similar rates of carrying a gun (whites 5.5%, and African Americans, 6.5%). [10] African American youth represent 32% of all weapons arrests, and were arrested for weapons offenses at a rate twice that of whites (69 per 100,000, versus 30 per 100,000). [11]

Arent the liberals responsible for all the gun laws? Alot white folk live in rural areas where carrying guns aint treated like a crime.

Drug war and welfare - local drug gang is the father and Uncle Sam pays the bills.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker

They are two separate offenses, aggravated is much more than just a fistfight that lasts a minute.

The stats were for "being in a physical fight". I saw no reference to upper (or lower) limits on timescales and severity. Unless those limits exist in a footnote, the comparison appears to be valid- on the admittedly limited information available.

[Berzerker]

And there is a difference between assault and aggravated assault. A knife or some weapon is usually present or the beating is more severe. Gangs are probably prosecuted for aggravated assault quite a bit.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ramo
No drug could **** up a person to that extent.

Well perhaps if you left the capsules in the jars or packets, and left those in the boxes, and a box of, say, Temazepam, had dropped on his head, then that might account for it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon

Unlike some of you who have led more sheltered lives, I had a lot of acquaintances who ended up on the wrong side of the law.

As did I- but the point is that people are drawing an indelible link between 'race' and an increased propensity to commit crime, whilst ignoring a whole raft of annoying facts that get in the way.

For instance, in the 18th & 19th Century crime (and property related crime) sky-rocketed in the United Kingdom- but this was also because of new laws, and the extension of existing laws (especially related to property), and the introduction of harsher punishments- it didn't mean that the inhabitants of the British Isles had suddenly developed a genetic mutation predisposing them to commit more crimes, nor that the non-white population had diametrically increased- but of course, there were more black slaves and servants during that period, and there was an increase in urban population, frequently without the resources to feed them or house them- and alcohol consumption increased hugely too- with gin replacing the weaker beer or ale.

There was also the problem that the people who prosecuted the poor were also the people who judged the poor, who enacted laws to punish the poor, who controlled the markets and ran the factories, and who (somewhat naturally) would be more inclined to look for wrongdoers not amongst their own, but amongst outsiders.

In London in the 17th or 18th Century, a person of substance or rank could assault a servant and expect to get away with it- and gangs such as the Mohocks or members of the Hellfire Club could do what their social inferiors could not- and let's face it, even today getting away with rape would be a lot easier if you're a Kennedy clan member with deep pockets, than if you were a low income African American or Hispanic and had had to rely on a public defender who fell asleep during your trial.