Please explain how any of that demonstrates that black people do not commit more crime than other races.
Please explain to me how you are not requiring me and others in this thread to prove a negative. Given that you apparently think that black people commit more crimes than other races, the burden of proof is on you to show it.
statistics and figures earlier in this topic. You seem to have missed them.
Yes, Rodney King is a great example to prove your point. A black man, and a twice-convicted felon (framed by the police, surely, both times, even though he pleaded no contest to beating his wife) leads police on a high-speed chase through a residential area (framed) with a blood-alcohol level of .19 (framed). He then refuses a police order to exit his vehicle and resists arrest (framed).
Unless you are seriously suggesting that this justifies him being severely beaten by police officers in the process of arresting him when he did not attack even one of them, this is irrelevant. The closest he came to physical resistance was pushing himself up off of the ground.
Also, your 'sarcasm' is way out of line. I never said anything about him being framed for any of that, and I really don't appreciate your insinuations to the contrary. If that's not what you were trying to get across, then you should clarify it.
And then, if I remember correctly, because the victim was a black man and America is so racist, nobody cared that King was beaten during his arrest, right? Wait, no, actually the arresting officers stood trial for use of exessive force, and were found not guilty by a jury.
The officers were then tried in federal court for violation of King's civil rights, and two of them were found guilty. You also apparently ignored the probability that there would have been no trial and no real knowledge of it had it not been for the fact that the beating was videotaped by someone who was in the position to do so.
Then, I guess it was all over. Or did something happen after that?
Oh, right the LA Riots.
Black people reacted so badly to the jury's decision that they peacefully protested rioted, killing 53 people and injuring thousands more. A truly apt reminder of black people being unjustly labeled as criminals.
Yes, black people reacted badly to the acquittals, because that there was videotape evidence of Rodney King being severely beaten. He was struck 56 times with batons, Joe. Fifty-six
. After being tased by one of the officers. He had broken bones as a result of that beating. And then the LA court system acquitted the officers of the charge of using excessive force. I'm not justifying the riots because of that, but I can understand how people, who had severely suffered from institutional racism for more than two centuries, could draw the conclusion that the deck was stacked against them and react with fury.
White people have rioted before, and for far less justification. For example, the Tulsa race riotWiki
of 1921 resulted in the wealthiest African-American community in the United States being burned to the ground. 800 people were admitted to hospitals as a result of it, over 6,000 residents of that community were arrested (as near as I can tell, no whites were arrested even though much, if not most, of the rioting was the responsibility of white people; no white person except the chief of police was charged with any crime, and said chief was simply dismissed from his job), 10,000 black people were left homeless, and 35 city blocks (1,256 residences) were burned to the ground. That's just the bare bones; the details are much worse.
I don't believe you can legitimately draw the conclusion that black people are inherently more likely to commit crimes just from arrest data. A person can be arrested but never charged with a crime; they can be acquitted of the charges if they are, or vindicated of them if they are wrongfully convicted.
Still? I never made that claim, so I couldn't be still making it. Of course racism is a problem.
Your attitude in this post and previous ones suggested otherwise. However, I'll accept your clarification.
That is clearly what the arrest data suggests.
No. It is your conclusion from the arrest data. The fact that other people disagree with you contradicts your assertion that it's a clear conclusion from the arrest data. And, as I stated just above, arrest data by itself doesn't confirm that a person is a criminal.