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.
I think black people commit more crime than other races based on the fact that black people are arrested at a larger proportion than other races. I simply see no reason not to accept the data at face value.
Quesi posted statistics and figures earlier in this topic. You seem to have missed them.
I found them irrelevant. While the data shows more whites found with guns, it does not demonstrate that fewer crimes are committed by blacks. So whites are found with guns at a higher proportion than blacks during a stop and frisk. That doesn't disprove my point. It only demonstrates that whites are found with guns at a higher proportion than blacks during a stop and frisk.
You may choose to interpret the data to mean that whites are more likely to use a gun in the commission of a crime, or that whites are more likely to carry a gun in self defense. The data makes neither claim, so it's open to interpretation.
Neither does the data report how many of those found with guns had permits to carry them, undoubtedly some did. Were a greater percentage of those legally carried weapons found on blacks or whites? We don't know.
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.
Officers claim that he repeatedly moved towards them despite their orders to stay down. Only at those moments did they resume their attempts to subdue him. At several points they stopped attacking, only to have King get up again, despite their orders, and make what they believed was an attempt to attack one of them.
Considering that this man had just led them on a high speed chase, and had a record of violent crime, they had no way of knowing whether or not he was armed and I think they were right in erring on the side of caution.
The fact that he was unable to attack any of them does not mean he didn't try, it simply means they were successful in preventing his attack.
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.
Not sure why you brought him up then. Rodney King is an example of a black man who was in fact a criminal, not someone who was falsely treated as a criminal simply for being black.
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.
King was taken to the hospital with broken bones, the police made no attempt to cover up his wounds or the incident even before the tape came out. The tape probably helped him, but I don't think you can make the claim that there would have been no trial without it.
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.
Is that racism or the result of resisting arrest? The other two black
men in the car with him were tased 0 times and beaten 0 times. How many times would he have been tased if he had gotten out of his vehicle as ordered? How many times would he have been beaten if he had gotten down on the ground as ordered? How many extra hits did he buy himself when he grabbed his ass in a lewd sexual gesture towards a female officer which was mistaken as a reach for a weapon?
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.
I steal TVs when I'm angry too.
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.
That happens to people of all races.
The fact that other people disagree with you contradicts your assertion that it's a clear conclusion from the arrest data.
I'm simply suggesting the possibility that the data is actually accurate. I see no reason to believe otherwise.