The myth of the Black-on-White rape epidemic

I hate to say it, but I agree with EgalitarianJay and that snake Tim Wise.

What people don't understand is that sexual assault does not equal rape. Look at the actual rapes on FBI table 43 and you'll see that it's nowhere near 30k rapes per year. People don't understand the term 'sexual assault' does not equal rape.

 

Leered my ass. The incident Billie Holiday sings about happened in Marion, Indiana. Two Black men and a Black teenager set out to rob a couple parked on lover's lane. The kid chickened out. The two Black men beat the man and raped the women for $20. The man's skull was fractured and he died a few days later. After the guy died the crowd was a little pissed. The took the men from the jail and beat them to death then hanged them in a tree. When the kid was brought out someone in the crowd yell out that he wasn't involved. The sheriff to him and he later went to prison.

 

Actually we have pretty good records that dispute your nonsensical claim.

"The Tuskegee Institute has recorded 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites being lynched between 1882 and 1968,"

That's about 40 blacks being lynched in an average year. Currently white women sexually assaulted by blacks occurs approximately 30,000 times a year.

I'm sure your 40 blacks weren't all innocent dindu nuffins.

 

Considering the disproportionate violent crime rate against whites and Hispanics by blacks, it is reasonable to think the DOJ statistics have merit.

 

Blacks are so much more violent than whites, that it turns out after adjusting for violent behavior, police are less likely to kill blacks than whites.

Trayvon Martin also attacked and savagely beat George Zimmerman before George acted in self defense and ended Trayvon Martin's life.

This is what a police department and jury agreed upon.

 

So why are blacks far more likely to attack Hispanics than the other way round when Hispanics are only around 30% larger in population than blacks?

 

Criminality and poverty are correlated. There is no reason to believe that Blacks are innately more violent than Whites.

So do you accept jury verdicts at face value? Do you believe that OJ Simpson was innocent because he was found not guilty?

Trayvon Martin had no criminal record and was walking home from a store with snacks while George Zimmerman, who has a history of violence, was patrolling the neighborhood when he wasn't supposed to, called the police on him without seeing him doing anything, followed him when a 911 dispatcher told him not to, approached him with a gun and killed him. What basis do you have to claim that Zimmerman was the one acting in self-defense and not Trayvon? I would like to hear what you have to say about both the OJ Simpsion and George Zimmerman cases.

 

The correlation between criminality and poverty is relatively low. Race is a greater predictor of criminality than income level, and blacks except the very highest income decile have higher criminality rates than whites at any decile.

The police investigation exonerated George Zimmerman. His injuries included having his head bashed against a sidewalk.

 

Hispanic is not a race. Which means a black person could attack another black person who is "hispanic", and it would be counted as "black on hispanic crime".

 

On what basis are you claiming that Trayvon Martin is the one who started the fight? Based on the evidence presented it is very plausible that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, started losing the fight and shot Travyon to gain the upperhand. Having your head bashed in to the sidewalk doesn't prove anything. Pulling a gun on an unarmed person who didn't present themselves as a threat to you is also excessive force. A case could easily be made that Trayvon Martin acted in self-defense and George Zimmerman should have been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter. The jury was incompetent and illogical. Zimmerman has also been in multiple violent altercations since that trial showing that he is mentally unstable and has violent tendencies. They let a killer go free.

 

It also means that when a black Hispanic attacks a black it will be classified as an Hispanic crime against blacks.

Either way, the number of black Hispanics is small compared to the overall Hispanic population and I doubt will much affect overall statistics.

http://www.vdare.com/posts/new-doj-...lly-include-hispanics-as-an-offender-category

 

your faux concern about "black on hispanic" crime is duly noted.

 

The original point was to mention blacks disproportionately attack Hispanics despite being around the same size in population.

 

It is indeed a fact that black men rape white women far more commonly than the reverse. Anything you've heard to the contrary is false. However, the number of black-on-white rapes within the United States you've mentioned (30,000 per year) is about twice the actual figure.

The number of black-on-white rapes is usually between 12,000 and 18,000 rapes per year. The number of white-on-black rapes is usually less than ten per year.

The significance of the low value for white-on-black rapes reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey isn't what you might have been trying to make it seem. Rather, it means:

1. Blacks rape whites much, much, much more often than whites rape blacks. This much is clear.

2. Due to the small sample size of white-on-black rapes, the population rate for white-on-black rapes cannot be calculated with precision by using this data set alone.

You would, were you an honest researcher on this subject, seek additional information from independent data sets, set about doing your own scientific study of the matter, or at the very least call for others to conduct such studies. But, no, instead you only want to engage in invalid pooh-poohery.

You can get a better sense of the (per capita over perpetrators) rate ratio of black-on-white rapes to white-on-black rapes by examining the arrest data in the FBI's annually published Uniform Crime Reports. The FBI UCR does not suffer from the problem of small sample size.

The black-to-white per capita rate ratio for interracial rape is about 3000, though this can vary from place to place and from year to year. In Florida in 1988, that ratio was 941, according to Dr. William Wilbanks of Florida International University.

There are far more black-on-white rapes than there are white-on-black rapes. They differ by at least two, but more likely three, orders of magnitude. In fact, there are probably more BLACK HOAXES about white-on-black rape than there are actual white-on-black rapes. (Tawana Brawley, Crystal Gale Mangum...)

Now, interracial rape is somewhat rare, in the sense that there are crimes that occur far more frequently. Interracial rapists are much less common than shoplifters, for example. But the numbers that racists have been citing - most of the time - is approximately correct, and blacks are doing it about a thousand times more than whites are doing it.

 

So you think that Zimmerman should be convicted because its possible that he initiated violence. It cant be proved either way and in our system you have to prove guilt but you want a special case made for Zimmerman and proof is NOT necessary merely the possibility.

Does this apply to all cades or just ones where a whote man is accused of killing a black man?

 

It always annoys me when racists use crime statistics to try to prove that African-Americans are somehow inferior to whites. The truth is that most rapes are committed by men, regardless of race. So I say to the racists, unless you are willing to admit that men are inferior to women, shut the heck up!

 

I don't think anybody disagrees that men commit rape more than women. What's at issue is why do so many black men commit rape relative to their population size? And why is interracial rape between blacks and whites almost always going in only one direction?

And of course it annoys you. It's a fact that is very inconvenient to many left-wing narratives being pushed in society, and difficult to explain away.

 

You can't get actual figures on interracial rape for all the reasons I outlined in the OP and which Tim Wise explained. Accusing me of engaging in "pooh-poohery" is not an argument and you didn't address the main point which wasn't that Blacks don't commit more rape per capita or rape more White women than the reverse but the numbers aren't as high as racists are reporting. You basically conceded the argument and attacked a strawman.

Bottomline:

1) Black-on-White rape estimates are exaggerated.

2) White-on-Black rape estimates are grossly underestimated.

3) There is no statistical basis for claiming a Black-on-White rape epidemic.

In our criminal justice system juries make a judgment call based on the facts. It is a fact that innocent men have gone to prison and guilty men have gone free so our justice system isn't perfect. There was enough evidence in the case to convict George Zimmerman of second degree murder or manslaughter. He killed him. That's a fact. The circumstances of their conflict is what is not known. We don't know who initiated it. We only have Zimmerman's side of the story and there is no evidence supporting his testimony. So what is more likely? That an unarmed teenager, with no criminal record, who was minding his own business walking home with candy and a drink from a convenient store started a fight with a grown man after calling a girl telling her that he was scared of a potential stalker and decided to speed walk home then after starting the fight threatened to grab and shoot him with his own gun forcing Zimmerman to shoot him (Zimmerman's story)? Or is it more likely that a vigilante neighborhood watchmen saw a guy who to him looked suspicious, chased after him armed with a gun against the directions of a 911 dispatcher, did something to initiate a conflict with him (like grabbed a hold of him and told him to wait for the cops) started losing the fight and then shot him dead to gain the upper hand? What is more likely? In both scenarios there is a disagree of speculation as to what actually happened. The jury could have decided either way and they decided to let a killer go free on the basis that he was "standing his ground." Now we know that George Zimmerman, who had a history of violence before this incident, is a psychotic troublemaker and the jury more than likely got this wrong. He has threatened to shoot other people (clearly not in self-defense) and had other incidents where his side of the story looks like a blatant lie (such as claiming that a man punched him in the face for killing Trayvon Martin and then called Zimmerman himself an N-word lover).

To me this is simply a case of racial bias in the criminal justice system.

I addressed this issue in the OP and I believe my arguments are solid. The idea that Black men are innately more prone to rape is absurd when you consider that most Black men do not commit rape and during American slavery, when White men had more access to Black women, the number of White-on-Black rapes was much greater than Black-on-White rapes. Rape is a crime of opportunity and there are different motivations such as rapists feeling sexually depraved, angered at rejection and being morally decadent in general. Being more sexually aggressive has little to do with it. There are much more reasonable explanations for Black men raping White women in higher numbers than the reverse such as having more access to them through social interaction and coming from backgrounds where they are more prone to developing the mentality of a rapist through psychological damage during their upbringing. I explained all of this and no one has challenged my position.

A genetic explanation (e.g. Blacks evolved to be more aggressive due to higher testosterone) has also been thoroughly refuted.

 

In the CRIMINAL justice system juries are instructed to convict that there must be reasonable doubt. They do not decide what is more likley, the must be certain that the crime was as charged

As you admit we dont know what happened. It might be as you say but it might be as I say which is a young thug recently suspended from school for fighting who was being followed decided to turn around and confront Zimmerman then attack him.

Neither of us can prove our theory and in this case the ONLY proper response is not guilty.

what you want to do is just decide 'which is more likely' as if this was a civil case? Are you really suggesting that Criminal cases should be decided on likelihood rather than proof?

Really?

 

Do you not see the fatal flaw in your logic? If every case should be decided by proof beyond a reasonable doubt then that only gives criminals the incentive to cover up their crimes or lie about them to increase the chance that they be found not guilty. The fact is that jury decisions are not perfect, they make judgment calls and bias exists. The proof of this is that innocent people have gone to prison and been exonerated by new evidence and guilty people have been acquitted yet they are protected under double jeopardy. It recently came out for instance that Carolyn Bryant, the White woman that accused Emmett Till of flirting with her leading to his murder by her husband and his brother, admitted to lying in court about her recollection of events. The killers were acquitted by an all White jury and later admitted to murdering him. Carolyn Bryant, last time I checked, is still alive in her 80s and in hiding but admitted to lying because she had a guilty conscience.

Now you tell me, is that justice?

In the George Zimmerman case it came out that several of the jurors were ready to convict him of manslaughter or second degree murder but a very aggressive juror insisted on a not guilty verdict insisting that he had a right to stand his ground. What about Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground? Imagine that you are him and some stranger is following you home. You don't know him. You don't know what he wants. He could be a mugger or a child molester for all you know. Maybe you speed walk home, turn around and decide to ask him why he is following you. You have an argument, he grabs a hold of you and you fight. You start winning and he shoots you to gain the upperhand. Did you deserve to get shot? Was that situation your fault? Is it justice that the man got away with killing you? Does Zimmerman's story of the boy hiding in the bushes, threatening him, sucker punching him, banging his head on the side walk and reaching for his gun really sound credible to you?

So we don't know what really happened for an objective fact. Does that mean that in the absence of concrete facts they must have acquitted him and ignored circumstantial evidence? That to me simply isn't justice.

We can only speculate. And you can bring up Trayvon Martin's suspension from school for fighting as evidence that he is a violent thug while I can bring up George Zimmerman's history of violence including domestic violence reports, assaulting a police officer and throwing a girl across the room at a party that he was providing security for as evidence that he was an out of control, power-hungry maniac who was even more of a violent thug. The fact is he killed the kid, got away with it and keeps popping up in the news for violent behavior. And if you don't think there was racial bias in this case, ask yourself this, if the situation was the same and a Black man stalked a White teenager at night and killed him would you argue that the Black man should be acquitted?

 

This is how the law applies in every western country. Juries or presiding judges in countries without jury trials must be certain that a crime has been committed. Juries are certainly not flawless a but since you admit we dont know what happened its quite clear that the only possible legitimate outcome is that there was no proof of Murder of manslaughter. I have little doubt that Trayvon martin was a strutting little thug who constantly looked for fights. he could have easily gone home but decided to confront the 'cracker' . He attacked him and paid with his life. However it might be as you said...we dont know and yes with the absence proof either way only an acquittal is possible.

You are demanding that the entire process of the criminal justice system is changed. from beyond reasonable doubt to balance of evidence..... That is not going to happen. Black people in the USA are incredibly violent and for their numbers commit violent crime at incredible levels. If we changed the law to what you want them lots more will go to jail and be found guilty.

 

What you just said is contradictory. You said you have no doubt that Trayvon Martin was a violent thug looking for a fight and then said we don't really know what happened. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You are also using the testimony of Rachel Jeantel to argue that Trayvon Martin was a racist thug (called Zimmerman a creepy ass cracker) but how willing are you to accept her testimony that Trayvon said he was going to speed walk home, that she heard Zimmerman and Trayvon arguing and that she heard what sounded like Zimmerman pushing Trayvon in the grass? This is what I am talking about concerning bias. You see what you want to see and look at the evidence that you think best supports your argument. That's how many jurors look at cases too. They don't always adhere to reaching a verdict based on whether or not there is reasonable doubt. Sometimes they judge based on the balance of evidence. Sometimes they reach a verdict based on what they want to believe rather than what is more rational.

Here is my position....look at the totality of the evidence available and make a decision. You can't be right 100% all of the time and you can't always know what really happened but you can look at the evidence available and reach a conclusion. That is the best you can do. I look at all variables. I consider Trayvon Martin's misconduct in school along with George Zimmerman's history of violence both domestic and professional. I consider the testimony of his friend Rachel including the "Creepy Ass Cracker" comment but also George Zimmerman's 911 call where you can clearly hear him calling Trayvon a "f*cking punk" and suggesting people like him always get away despite not witnessing him commit an actual crime. I consider the physical evidence of Zimmerman having a cut on his head consistent with his head hitting the concrete but I also consider the lack of evidence for the other things he said such as Trayvon threatening to shoot him with his own gun and use logic to consider how absurd that is. Saying that there is not enough evidence to convict is just a cop-out and I don't believe you would say that in a case where a Black man shoots and kills an unarmed White teenager with the scenario being similar to this one.

The rest of your post concerning Black people in the USA being incredibly violent is just an emotional comment on your part. Most Black people in America are not violent criminals. The criminal element are mostly gangsters fighting over drugs. The worst of the violent criminals, the rapists and murderers make up a very small fraction of the population too insignificant to claim their behavior is a reflection on the innate character of the general Black American population who regardless of Socioeconomic Status are mostly law-abiding citizens who never have any serious criminal convictions. The criminal justice system definitely has its problems. When you have Black Americans receiving harsher sentences on average than White Americans for the exact say crime there is a problem. Whatever cultural problems exist in the Black community that lead to disproportionately high crime rates can be corrected and have nothing to do with differences in racial biology which is nothing by pseudoscientific racist propaganda.

 

So you believe that men are inferior to women.

 

That's what I got out of the original post, too. If Tim Wise's information is correct, and the sample is so small and incomplete, then I don't see how any conclusion could be reached, either way. The data on rape is incomplete, meaningless, and useless.

 

No need to bring trump into this...




(For those trump supporters lacking a sense of humor: that sentence was meant to be humorous).