Black On Black Crime

10th March 2014

Rather shocked by this:


Blacks comprise roughly 12.5 percent of the U.S. population.


Black-on-black crime is a sensitive subject in this increasingly polarized nation. While covered in academia and occasionally addressed by talking heads on television, some believe it rarely, if ever, receives the type and depth of attention it deserves. Instead, critics argue that this national tragedy is usually swept under the rug by powerful interest groups and individuals more concerned with elevating their own racially-driven agendas than addressing the real issues at hand. The Trayvon Martin case is only the most recent example of this grim hypocrisy.

Indeed, statistics support a very different narrative than the one usually offered by “race hustlers,” as Pastor C.L. Bryant calls them, who routinely portray an America where members of the black community are selectively targeted and brutalized by white racists.

A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, reveals that approximately 8,000 — and, in certain years, as many as 9,000 African Americans are murdered annually in the United States. This chilling figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact, that 93% of these murders are in fact perpetrated by other blacks. The analysis, supported by FBI records, finds that in 2005 alone, for example, African Americans accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the US — again, almost exclusively at the hands of other African Americans.


To put these number in perspective, recall that over 6,400 U.S. service men and women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the course of a decade-long war fought in those nations. During the Vietnam War, which lasted nearly 13 years, some 58,000 Americans were killed — nearly 13 percent of whom were African American.

Extrapolating black-on-black crime data reveals that, by comparison, approximately 100,000 African Americans have been killed on our own streets at the hands of other African Americans in roughly the same stretches of time. It is difficult to find anyone who would white-wash these mind-numbing statistics.

You're shocked that America has a high murder rate? Here is some info on white-on-white murder:

When White on White crime takes place it’s never talked about the way it is when Blacks commit crimes.

In the United States, a White person is almost six times more likely to be killed by another White person than by a Black person, according to FBI homicide data. In 2011, there were more cases of Whites killing Whites than there were Blacks killing Blacks. However, the mainstream media obsesses over Black on Black violence and rarely mentions the problem of White on White violence.

These statistics have not led to a media outcry about the problem of White on White crime or the unique pathology of the White community. Nor has the White community stood up to demand change in their community like the Black community does when trying to tackle instances of Black on Black crime.

Most White people don’t kill White people. Yet media pundits, from Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly to CNN’s Don Lemon, have no problem using the phrase “Black on Black violence” despite the fact that most Black people don’t kill Black people.

When the news talks about gang-related deaths, they treat it as an almost exclusively Black problem. However, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, for the period of 1980 to 2008, a majority (53.3 percent) of gang homicides were committed by White offenders, and the majority of gang homicide victims (56.5 percent) were White.

http://callandpost.com/news/2013/aug/16/white-white-crime-more-prevalent-black-black/

Crimes on neighbors is a general pattern in all of human existence. Criminals pray on victims who have the same conventions--language, perceptions, patterns and expectations--as they do, because it is necessary to help them achieve their crimes.

The dominant white community in America aids in this by imposing segregation on African Americans. Much as we'd like to believe otherwise, discrimination is still the norm in America...as Treyvon Martin and Jordan Davis confirm.

The rules of discrimination dictate that Blacks must live in certain neighborhoods, thus limiting the opportunities for crime, and channeling criminals of the same race to pray upon like people.

Please discuss that andy. Would lov to hear your views.

Original Quill wrote:Crimes on neighbors is a general pattern in all of human existence.  Criminals pray on victims who have the same conventions--language, perceptions, patterns and expectations--as they do, because it is necessary to help them achieve their crimes.

The dominant white community in America aids in this by imposing segregation on African Americans.  Much as we'd like to believe otherwise, discrimination is still the norm in America...as Treyvon Martin and Jordan Davis confirm.

The rules of discrimination dictate that Blacks must live in certain neighborhoods, thus limiting the opportunities for crime, and channeling criminals of the same race to pray upon like people.

Please discuss that andy.  Would lov to hear your views.

Is one of those places the White House?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Crimes on neighbors is a general pattern in all of human existence.  Criminals pray on victims who have the same conventions--language, perceptions, patterns and expectations--as they do, because it is necessary to help them achieve their crimes.

The dominant white community in America aids in this by imposing segregation on African Americans.  Much as we'd like to believe otherwise, discrimination is still the norm in America...as Treyvon Martin and Jordan Davis confirm.

The rules of discrimination dictate that Blacks must live in certain neighborhoods, thus limiting the opportunities for crime, and channeling criminals of the same race to pray upon like people.

Please discuss that andy.  Would lov to hear your views.

Is one of those places the White House?

It was, before.  Discrimination is a flagship standard of the Republican Party.  This has been the case ever since Lee Atwater came up with the Southern Strategy for Republicans:

Wiki wrote:
As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of the interview was printed in Lamis's book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005, edition of the New York Times. On November 13, 2012, The Nation magazine released what it claimed to be audio of the full interview.

In his interview, Atwater explained his strategy:

Wikw wrote:
Atwater: "You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "------" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Niger, nigger."

So,  the essential advice of the Republicans became, don't openly express your prejudice, but translate it into code.  It's kinda like the da Vinci code, think: 'The 'V' stands for woman and she was at the Last Supper.'  Now, dancin' and hip-hop stand for the Black man.  See how it works?

And so it carries on.  Of course, it isn't in the White House today.  And able and just man resides there today.

Original Quill wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Is one of those places the White House?

It was, before.  Discrimination is a flagship standard of the Republican Party.  This has been the case ever since Lee Atwater came up with the Southern Strategy for Republicans:

Wiki wrote:
As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of the interview was printed in Lamis's book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005, edition of the New York Times. On November 13, 2012, The Nation magazine released what it claimed to be audio of the full interview.

In his interview, Atwater explained his strategy:

Wikw wrote:
Atwater: "You start out in 1954 by saying, "------, ------, ------." By 1968 you can't say "------" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "------, ------."

So,  the essential advice of the Republicans became, don't openly express your prejudice, but translate it into code.  It's kinda like the da Vinci code, think: 'The 'V' stands for woman and she was at the Last Supper.'  Now, dancin' and hip-hop stand for the Black man.  See how it works?

And so it carries on.  Of course, it isn't in the White House today.  And able and just man resides there today.

Ooooh god.   

Hahaha That is so poignant, andy.  You must be Republican.

I think some of this comes down to segregation (if blacks or whites mainly live around the same colour than obviously most of the crimes will be committed against the same colour. The concept of segregation is very odd to me as I have never experienced it. there is a natural tendency for similar people to live near each other in part because it affords the critical mass to support particular services that may not be relevant to the larger community. My Area has a large Sikh temple so there are a lot of Sikhs in the area because it is convenient for them to live near their place of worship(interestingly no Christian churches nearby) but the kind of semi-sanctioned segregation like the US is just incomprehensible to me.

You should see the British enclaves wherever they go to live in the world LOL.

veya_victaous wrote:I think some of this comes down to segregation (if blacks or whites mainly live around the same colour than obviously most of the crimes will be committed against the same colour. The concept of segregation is very odd to me as I have never experienced it. there is a natural tendency for similar people to live near each other in part because it affords the critical mass to support particular services that may not be relevant to the larger community. My Area has a large Sikh temple so there are a lot of Sikhs in the area because it is convenient for them to live near their place of worship(interestingly no Christian churches nearby) but the kind of semi-sanctioned segregation like the US is just incomprehensible to me.

Definitely not veya.

Look at London - steadily become more and more black over the last 20 years, but it's always been foreigners doing the killing.

Are there any whites living in London right now? A couple of million.

It's almost exclusively blacks doing the mugging and killing.

@Andy
well you white boys should pick up your game. As much as the media might like to say the 'ethnics' are doing the most crime all the biggest gangs are Westies (white Anglo).

It's almost exclusively blacks doing the mugging and killing.

that is complete bullshit, it is near 50% which is statistically very high so there may be an issue but it is definitely not exclusively blacks doing muggings and killing. You may have a point that there is a disproportionate level of crime from the Caribbean community (the only group of foreigners which have a higher crime rate than the Anglos in LONDON) but you ruin it and make yourself sound like a racists by saying it is ONLY blacks.

BigAndy9 wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I think some of this comes down to segregation (if blacks or whites mainly live around the same colour than obviously most of the crimes will be committed against the same colour. The concept of segregation is very odd to me as I have never experienced it. there is a natural tendency for similar people to live near each other in part because it affords the critical mass to support particular services that may not be relevant to the larger community. My Area has a large Sikh temple so there are a lot of Sikhs in the area because it is convenient for them to live near their place of worship(interestingly no Christian churches nearby) but the kind of semi-sanctioned segregation like the US is just incomprehensible to me.

It's almost exclusively blacks doing the mugging and killing.

What would you expect, andy?  If only Blacks live in the City, and Blacks do all the crime, it's because it is Black on Black.  It's just a matter of demographics, nothing more. Crime is an opportunistic enterprise.

@Quill
Andy seems to think they sent any Englishmen that would steal and kill somebody to Australia back in the 1800's,  :::grouch::  :::grouch::  lord knows we got plenty of Anglo mugger/murders, so only explanation is the sent them all here  :\\:[: :\\:[: 

Andy seems to think that crime rates are related to skin pigmentation rather than socioeconomic status -- not really a topic worth debate by anybody of average-to-above intellect.

You address poverty and the racism that leads to certain ethnic groups being sentenced to it and you address crime. Opportunity and the ability to lead a dignified life will always reduce crime. Social rejection and lack of opportunity will always cause it to increase. But like Blade said, some motherfuckers are always trying to ice-skate uphill.

But--horrors   that means welfare.

See where andy's reasoning leads?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Andy seems to think that crime rates are related to skin pigmentation rather than socioeconomic status -- not really a topic worth debate by anybody of average-to-above intellect.

You address poverty and the racism that leads to certain ethnic groups being sentenced to it and you address crime. Opportunity and the ability to lead a dignified life will always reduce crime. Social rejection and lack of opportunity will always cause it to increase. But like Blade said, some motherfuckers are always trying to ice-skate uphill.

I dunno        Anglo Aussies seem to have a pretty high disposition towards crime. Maori and Pacific Islanders can match it due to a propensity for violence, but only the Vietnamese of the Asians races can compete with the the Anglo Aussie for organising crime for profit(drugs etc), Indians pretty useless at crime really. Middle Easterners are all talk (they like to play gangsta) the will threaten to get their cousins but grab them and their phone and the start to squeal like a stuck pig.      

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Andy seems to think that crime rates are related to skin pigmentation rather than socioeconomic status -- not really a topic worth debate by anybody of average-to-above intellect.

You address poverty and the racism that leads to certain ethnic groups being sentenced to it and you address crime. Opportunity and the ability to lead a dignified life will always reduce crime. Social rejection and lack of opportunity will always cause it to increase. But like Blade said, some motherfuckers are always trying to ice-skate uphill.

I dunno        Anglo Aussies seem to have a pretty high disposition towards crime. Maori and Pacific Islanders can match it due to a propensity for violence, but only the Vietnamese of the Asians races can compete with the the Anglo Aussie for organising crime for profit(drugs etc), Indians pretty useless at crime really. Middle Easterners are all talk (they like to play gangsta) the will threaten to get their cousins but grab them and their phone and the start to squeal like a stuck pig.      

Yeah, my neck of the woods has its share of gangs but the Vietnamese are the only ones who put hits on people ...

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Andy seems to think that crime rates are related to skin pigmentation rather than socioeconomic status -- not really a topic worth debate by anybody of average-to-above intellect.

You address poverty and the racism that leads to certain ethnic groups being sentenced to it and you address crime. Opportunity and the ability to lead a dignified life will always reduce crime. Social rejection and lack of opportunity will always cause it to increase. But like Blade said, some motherfuckers are always trying to ice-skate uphill.

I dunno        Anglo Aussies seem to have a pretty high disposition towards crime. Maori and Pacific Islanders can match it due to a propensity for violence, but only the Vietnamese of the Asians races can compete with the the Anglo Aussie for organising crime for profit(drugs etc), Indians pretty useless at crime really. Middle Easterners are all talk (they like to play gangsta) the will threaten to get their cousins but grab them and their phone and the start to squeal like a stuck pig.      

All due to socioeconomics, of course...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

I dunno        Anglo Aussies seem to have a pretty high disposition towards crime. Maori and Pacific Islanders can match it due to a propensity for violence, but only the Vietnamese of the Asians races can compete with the the Anglo Aussie for organising crime for profit(drugs etc), Indians pretty useless at crime really. Middle Easterners are all talk (they like to play gangsta) the will threaten to get their cousins but grab them and their phone and the start to squeal like a stuck pig.      

Yeah, my neck of the woods has its share of gangs but the Vietnamese are the only ones who put hits on people ...

All due to socioeconomics, of course....

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Yeah, my neck of the woods has its share of gangs but the Vietnamese are the only ones who put hits on people ...

All due to socioeconomics, of course....

Haha...nothing is more absurd than a theory that suggests it is due to skin pigmentation, andy. That is where racism gets downright embarrassing.

 

I think by "black" B'Andy means anybody who is the slightest bit darker than the off-white background of this page ~ by which measure, I suspect that even I, (and maybe even the likes of Didge, and a couple of others, by the way they sometimes describe themselves..) would have B'Andy jumping out of his skin with even the slighest sideways glance in his direction...


The baddies native to around here are mostly from Englsh (i.e.. "Anglo Saxons"), Taffy, Italian and Irish backgrounds, and the odd Islander or Koori gangs who hop the trains from down around Veya's neighbourhood..

I often doubt that the actual police and court figures even from around Andy's very own 'hood would support his usually exagerrated and absurdist claims that he posts in here !