The myth of the Black-on-White rape epidemic

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Egalitarianjay02, Aug 7, 2016.

  1. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And just when I was reading the New Activity page and thinking 'Oh that's a nice change - no anti-Trump spamming this morning, I see this:

    :wall:
     
  2. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm glad you caught that and this shows the bias of the other side. The survey data is so unreliable that one year White-on-Black rapes number in the thousands and the next year they are less than 10 and sometimes zero. That was a red flag for me when I originally heard this data and I am thankful to Tim Wise for explaining the errors in the sampling. David Sims accused me of being a dishonest researcher and yet had no problem promoting the obvious falsehood that White men rape Black women less than 10 times per year. In 2015 Daniel Holtzclaw, a White cop, was convicted of raping or sexually assaulting 13 Black women by himself and those are just the women who came forward. He specifically targeted poor Black women in inner city neighborhoods because he thought he could more easily get away with it as people were less likely to believe them. Are we really to believe that of all the millions of White men in America he was the only one doing this that year?

    A more reliable method of looking at interracial rape would be to not look at arrests or surveys but actual convictions based on forensic evidence. But that isn't being done. Rape is hard to prove because it is a crime that is typically done when there are no witnesses and it often goes unreported because women don't want to go through the trauma of using a rape kit and pressing charges against their attacker who if they plead not guilty will usually lie in court and attack her credibility to get off which can be even more traumatic. But at least with forensic evidence and a conviction the actual accusation is supported by evidence. In any case the available data clearly indicates that there is no epidemic if we consider an interracial rape epidemic to be Black men raping White women at an alarming rate indicating that they are targeting them as rape victims. If there ever was an interracial rape epidemic in this country it was during slavery when White men raped Black women so often it was a common cultural practice and in that situation we actually have DNA evidence as around 20% of the African-American gene pool is European while Y-Chromosome data shows that most of this mixed ancestry came from White men which means that millions of Black women must have been raped during slavery. But unlike my racist opponents who are fixated on claiming Black men are obsessed with raping White women because they are natural rapists I don't attribute this to the innate savagery of White men but rather the fact that during this time period they had more access to Black women than they do today and the power structure that existed at the time led to many more White men (and women) who took the opportunity to become sexual predators because they had the power to do it and their culture overlooked their indiscretions.
     
  3. Sab

    Sab Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Juries SHOULD only convict when there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt. if they are not doing this then they are bad juries. You clearly want a jury to convict when there is clearly reasonable doubt

    I have no doubt that Martin was a young thug. he had been suspended for fighting and he called himself 'no limits (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)'. However this does not prove that he defintely did anything that evening

    It is impossible that he could speed walk home and for a 'stalker' to catch up with him. If he sped walked home it would have taken him about 30 seconds . he would have been home before Zimmerman's call to the Operator was finished. Clearly therefore he did not do any such thing.

    It is certainly clear that we dont know exactly what happened w but you want someone found guilty without proof just because its plausible. This is clearlyt contray to all notions of legal practice.

    Black people clearly commit violent crime at vastly higher rtes than white people
     
  4. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The stat is blacks rape whites about 10x more than whites rape blacks

    And there are about 10x more whites in America than there are blacks, (blacks 12%)

    Well, duh.
     
  5. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There's no reason to believe that Zimmerman acted in self-defense that night. There is nothing about his behavior or actions that indicates he was defending himself. He got out of his vehicle and pursued Trayvon against the instruction of the 911 dispatcher. What happened after that only Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin know and Trayvon isn't alive to tell his side. Several jurors were ready to convict him. There's no reason to believe he is innocent and he has continued to display erratic, violent and threatening behavior showing that second degree murder or manslaughter was probably the right call.
     
  6. monkrules

    monkrules Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Rape is one of the very worst kinds of crimes for a lot of reasons. And the fact that everyone involved has reasons to avoid talking about it, or reporting it, makes the whole issue harder to understand and assess: embarrassment, hiding guilt, not wanting the publicity, etc. So it will always be hard to get solid numbers in order to understand it, and to be able to claim, with confidence, that we know what we’re talking about. As you said, the best way, would be to use conviction and evidence data. (But, even that data will not be accurate, though it will be better than what is now being used: surveys, etc).

    I’ve known three men who are rapists. Two were in prison, last I heard. One was never charged. And that is another huge problem, rape seems to be like an iceberg, where you only see the tip above the water (reported cases) while most of the iceberg is hidden under water (unreported cases). So, in that sense, we will never have the true numbers to work with. And, if a man rapes once, and gets away with it, what reason would he have to not continue raping as he feels the need? For this reason, I believe most rapists are serial rapists.

    Yesterday, I came across a long, interesting, article about the rape of seniors in nursing homes. In these cases, the vast majority of rapes go unreported. And in many cases the victims cannot testify accurately, or in some cases, even remember the attack or attacker because of senility issues. According to the piece, many of the rapists, who are workers in these senior care facilities, are serial rapists who can easily move to new jobs within the field, and continue to prey on the elderly. Again, everyone has reason to keep the information hidden: the facilities don’t want publicity, the rapist hides everything, the victims are embarrassed as are their families, some victims can’t see well, have Alzheimer’s, etc.. We’ll never get any kind of precise numbers on the frequency of these rapes or how widespread they are.

    http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/02/health/nursing-home-sex-abuse-investigation/

    In an earlier life, I worked as a professional musician in clubs and after-hour clubs. Sex and drugs were everywhere. Sex was often free, but always could be found for sale, and there were often accusations of rape. But, again, who could be believed? Almost everything remained hidden.

    Since accurate numbers are impossible to gather, it follows that it will also be impossible to assign blame to one particular group of men with any kind of precision. If we use only conviction data, it should, at least, be reasonably reliable. But then, we will still always be in the position of having to extrapolate that data in ways that will always be highly imprecise. Why? Because rape is so well hidden by so many parties.

    All men are horny and think about sex very often throughout the day. In an article, a shrink said men think about sex about once every 25 seconds. This includes all races of men, and men in all positions: from president turd, in the White House, to the janitor who has to clean up after him. In the end, we’ll each continue to accuse our favorite target group as being the worst offenders. And, imo, we’ll always be basing our conclusions on generalities, anecdotal evidence, and highly flawed data.
     
  7. Sab

    Sab Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38

    It wasnt the right call. there is every reason to suggest that marin attacked Zimmerman.
     
  8. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no reason whatsoever to assume Martin attacked Zimmerman first. For all we know he acted in self-defense. You could also argue that no matter who landed the first blow Zimmerman used excessive force by shooting him so based on the facts we know they could have found him guilty of manslaughter. They let a killer go free and now he has had multiple violent incidents since then proving he is a menace to society. Your only defense of Zimmerman is based on a technicality (e.g. he can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty). I do not believe that in the same situation if a Black man were charged with murdering a White teenager you would hold to that principle.

    Case in point, have you heard about the Roderick Scott case? Read about it and tell me how you feel about the verdict?
     
  9. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Quote (Originally by Egalitarianjay02)---
    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.

    George Zimmerman was a duly appointed neighborhood watchman in a community having problems with burglaries. His job was to know who was within the community's gates, and, if he saw someone he didn't know, to ask whom they were. That's what Zimmerman was doing when he followed Trayvon Martin. His job.

    Trayvon Martin initiated violence. He threw the first punch, breaking George Zimmerman's nose and knocking him to the ground. Martin then sat astride Zimmerman and began beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk. At some point, Trayvon Martin saw Zimmerman's gun and tried to get it. Zimmerman reached the gun first and shot Martin. Martin died.

    That's what happened. It wasn't murder. Not at all. It was a justified homicide in self-defense, just as the triel jury said it was. It's a wonder that Zimmerman put off shooting Martin as long as he did. If it had been me instead, I'd have shot Martin sooner.
     
  10. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I was being polite. You are engaging in obfuscation and in deception. The NCVS isn't the only source of crime data. There are others, both at the national level (US DOJ) and at the state level. One of them is the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. Every source of crime information shows that blacks commit nearly all forms of violent crime, including rape, at rates much higher than whites do.

    And the only problem with the NCVS data on interracial rape is its confidence level. What data we do have indicates that ratio of per capita rates for black-on-white rape to white-on-black rape is more than two orders of magnitude and less than four orders of magnitude. We can't pin it down to two significant figures because of the small sample size for white-on-black rapes. But we certainly can gather an order of magnitude estimate, and that much is a fact regardless of what you or Philip N Cohen thinks. And that's good enough. Your pedantry in regard to precision is the straw-man argument in this case.

    NO THEY ARE NOT. And you did NOT get this from any data set. It's a purely dogmatic political assertion that you inserted for no reason whatever.

    NO THEY ARE NOT. And you did NOT get this from any data set. It's a purely dogmatic political assertion that you inserted for no reason whatever.

    YES THERE IS. The only thing lacking (in the NCVS) is data sufficient for precision in determining the black-on-white rape rate. There is certainly enough information there to conclude that blacks men rape white women either hundreds or thousands of times more often than the race-reverse.
     
  11. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There is zero evidence for any of Georges Zimmerman's side of the story.

    Where is the evidence for:

    1) Trayvon Martin initiating violence.

    2) Trayvon Martin throwing the first punch.

    3) Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman's head multiple times in the side walk.

    4) Trayvon Martin trying to get Zimmerman's gun from him.

    There is no evidence for any of those claims. What we know is Zimmerman was patrolling the neighborhood when he wasn't supposed to be. He saw a person he thought was suspicious. He called 911. The boy he was following was Trayvon Martin who was walking back to his father's house with candy and a drink from a convenience store, got scared and called a girl on the phone asking for advice on what he should do then started to speed walk home. On the 911 call George Zimmerman accused Trayvon Martin of being a "(*)(*)(*)(*)ing punk" who always gets away and when he saw him speed walking got out of his vehicle and began chasing him armed with a gun. You can hear the 911 dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to approach Martin. After that we don't know what happened. We know there was a physical altercation. Zimmerman was hit in the nose and the injuries to the back of his head are consistent with his head hitting the side walk. For all you know Trayvon punched him after Zimmerman grabbed a hold of him and told him to wait for police. For all you know Zimmerman hit his head on the side walk when he fell. You don't know that Trayvon started the fight. You don't know that he was trying to kill him by banging his head on the sidewalk. You don't know that he reached for his gun to kill him with his own gun. Zimmerman could have easily lied about all of those things.

    Trayvon Martin was not a saint. We know he got in fights in school and had got suspended for misconduct. But he had no criminal record and George Zimmerman had a history of violence before and after his trial including domestic violence, assaulting a police officer, throwing a girl across the room at a part he was providing security for as well as threatening to kill other people. The man is a psycho and a menace to society. Based on all of the facts you can easily argue for manslaughter because shooting an unarmed person in this manner is excessive force. There is no reason to believe any of Zimmerman's account of events. This is the same man who was recently in a fight with a biker who he claims punched him in the face for bragging about killing Trayvon Martin and then called him an N-word lover. You honestly believe someone like that?!

    No, I'm not and you are simply wrong on all of your assertions. There is no crime data on interracial rape that can give us reliable figures on how many Black-on-White rapes there are vs. how many White-on-Black rapes there are. At best you can give an estimate. I already pointed out the absurdity of your claim that there are around 10 White-on-Black rapes or fewer in America. In one year alone recently a cop was convicted of raping at least 13 Black women by himself and you expect us to believe that 10 or fewer Black women are raped by White men on average per year? That is ridiculous. So yes, the White-on-Black rapes figures are grossly underestimated because the survey data is flawed and many rapes go unreported. The Black-on-White rape figures are grossly overestimated and no there is no epidemic. No matter how much you want there to be your racist ideological bias does not make it so. There are several reasons why Black-on-White rapes in America would be higher than White-on-Black rapes in America today which I outlined in the OP which have nothing to do with Black men targeting White women as their rape victims for racist reasons. The idea that Black men are more prone to become rapists for genetic reasons is also absurd for the reasons outlined in the link I provided.
     
  12. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    You've got that exactly backwards. There's zero evidence for the Martin family's side of the story. All of the evidence that exists backs up George Zimmerman.

    The police didn't even arrest Zimmerman at first. They could see that Zimmerman was telling the truth. The local district attorney declined to prosecute Zimmerman, and surely he would have if there had been any evidence that he'd committed a crime.

    The prosecution of George Zimmerman was a political move carried out by an ambitious state attorney, who hoped to curry favor with blacks so she could launch her own political career. But she couldn't convince the trial jury that there was any evidence on her side, and so she fell flat on her face in the courtroom. The jury, which heard all of the testimony, saw all of the evidence, declared that George Zimmerman was NOT GUILTY of murder and NOT GUILTY of manslaughter. They declared that his act was justified self-defense.

    So you're wrong. You're just running your mouth, trying to revise history and create a hoax regarding the Zimmerman-Martin shooting. You aren't about to fool me, and I'm going to see to it that you won't fool anyone else, either.

    Yes, there is evidence. Photographic and video evidence, made within minutes of the arrival of the police within the gated community. There is a photograph showing Zimmerman's face with a bloody flattened nose, broken when Trayvon Martin punched him. There was a bloody patch on the back of Zimmerman's head, where Martin had been bashing it against the sidewalk, visible in the video in which Zimmerman is walking into the Sanford police station. Anyone who says that this evidence doesn't exist is just plain lying. That includes you.

    Wrong. He was the captain of the neighborhood watch, always on duty, by the will of the residents of the community.

    True.

    True.

    He had marijuana on him and the makings for a street drug cocktail called "purple drank."

    He did call Rachel Jeantel, and they talked. What they said isn't really known. In court, Rachel Jeantel was caught lying about her age and about the reason she didn't attend Trayon Martin's funeral. Her story changed several times as previous versions were shown to be false by Zimmerman's attorneys. She could as easily have lied about what she heard on the telephone.

    George Zimmerman's story never changed and was never contradicted by any evidence.

    Here's a sarcastic video by Michael Savage summarizing Rachel Jeantel's testimony about a letter she said she wrote, but was not able to read. Later, she said she dictated the latter and that someone else wrote it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jf_NwS3W8U

    I especially like the way Rachel Jeantel accused Zimmerman of racism because Trayvon Martin called Zimmerman "a creepy-ass cracker." Just shows you how Jeantel thinks, or rather it shows how she can't think very well.

    George Zimmerman didn't do anying wrong with his gun. Americans have the right to be armed. Exercising that right isn't wrong. Americans have the right to defend themselves (with guns if they have them) when they are attacked. Exercising that right isn't wrong.

    Zimmerman's comment about "punks" was the result of homes in the gated community being burglarized by people who looked a great deal like Trayvon Martin.

    Zimmerman didn't chase Martin in order to assault him. He followed him to find out who he was and why he was in the gated community. That was Zimmerman's job.

    If you actually follow the audio tape of the 911 call, you can find out that Zimmerman followed Martin for 12 seconds after the dispatcher told Zimmerman that it wasn't necessary for Zimmerman to pursue Martin. After 12 seconds, Zimmerman turned around and began going back to his SUV.

    http://conservative-headlines.com/2012/04/trayvon-martin-doubled-back-wasnt-followed-by-zimmerman/

    Seeing Zimmerman turn around, Martin doubled back and began pursuing Zimmerman. That is why the encounter took place. Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin. He was returning to his SUV. Martin chased Zimmerman down, issued a verbal challenge, punched Zimmerman in the face, knocking him down, and then sat on his stomach and began bashing his head on the concrete. MARTIN CHASED ZIMMERMAN.

    Martin instigated conflict.

    Martin started the fight.

    Martin's violence put Zimmerman's life in danger.

    Zimmerman defended himself.

    Martin had only himself to blame for his own death.

    And that is all I have to do: provide the basis for an estimate. An order-of-magnitude estimate will do. My position does NOT depend on PRECISION. The data, as it is, without any additional scientific studies, is already good enough to prove that black-on-white rape happens at a per capita rate that is hundreds (maybe thousands) of times higher than white-on-black rape.

    I need prove no more than that. I don't have to give you PRECISE figures. The estimate is good enough to make my point.
     
  13. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    This is nothing but an emotional rant on your part. You didn't provide any evidence supporting all of your assertions that Zimmerman's side of the story is correct. There is no evidence supporting his claim of self-defense, only his word which clearly isn't good given his history of violence and tendency to lie. All you have is the jury's decision which you like, but how likely are you to support a verdict that you don't like? Do you believe that OJ Simpson was innocent? What about Roderick Scott? Don't dodge my questions either. Answer honestly. The fact is that bias exists in the criminal justice system and there is a lot of racial bias against Blacks who are convicted more often than Whites when charged with the same crime and face harsher sentences. My belief that the jury got it wrong in this case isn't baseless.



    That isn't evidence that Trayvon Martin initiated the violence. That is only evidence that there was a physical altercation. For all you know Trayvon hit him after he grabbed a hold of him. For all you know Zimmerman hit his head by falling on the side walk. You don't know the exact circumstances of how those wounds were inflicted.

    No, he was not supposed to be on patrol at that time and while he was within his right to make a phone call to report a suspicious person he used poor judgment in approaching him which the 911 dispatcher instructed him not do.


    That is irrelevant to whether or not George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. There is no reason to believe that Trayvon Martin was out for blood that night trying to kill people with their own gun and beating them to death on the side walk. On the other hand Zimmerman seemed to be acting with a depraved mind calling someone a "f*cking punk" without knowing them or seeing them commit a crime and was so determined to cause a conflict that he got out of his vehicle to approach Trayvon after already calling the police who informed him that they would handle it.

    Discrediting Rachel Jeantel doesn't exonerate George Zimmerman of wrongdoing and doesn't mean that he himself wasn't lying. Answer this question: Do you think it is logical or believable that a man would punch Zimmerman in the face for bragging about shooting Trayvon Martin and then call him an N-Word lover?

    Zimmerman is not credible. He has a history of violence including domestic violence against women as well as threatening to kill other people before and after killing Trayvon Martin.


    That source looks real credible. :roll:

    Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of the car in the first place and there is no reason to believe that he acted in self-defense when he shot Trayvon Martin. For all we know Trayvon fought him in self-defense.
    You haven no evidence for any of those claims. You are simply accepting George Zimmerman's narrative because it suits your racist ideological agenda. This man has a history of violence, brags about killing an unarmed teenager and put the gun he killed him with up for auction. He is a Grade A scumbag.


    The estimate is based on flawed statistical sampling which was explained in the OP. The racist narrative of hoards of Black men targeting White women to rape them because they are White is completely unfounded and as Tim Wise said the greatest threat to White women when it comes to rape or sexual assault is White men. Tim Wise proved that the nature of the sampling indicates that White-on-Black rapes are underestimated (one year there are less than 10 or zero and the next there are thousands) and the number of Black-on-White rapes are overestimated (estimates are based on less than 10 samples and inflated by how much the samples are meant to represent the general population). Another factor which I mentioned is that the DOJ does not distinguish between forcible rape and sexual assault so we don't know how many of these cases were actual rapes. Furthermore the idea that Black-on-White rapes represent some innate biological tendency of Black men to commit rape is based on racist pseudoscience.

    There are far more reasonable explanations for why Black-on-White rapes are higher than White-on-Black rapes in America today which I mentioned in the OP which are:

    1. Whites are the majority in America so there are many more White women available to be raped than there are Black women.

    2. Black rapists have more access to White women than White rapists do Black women (in modern times) because Black men are more likely to encounter and interact with a White woman than White men are with Black women.

    3. Blacks are disproportionately poor due to historical racist discrimination so Black men are more likely to be prone to psychological factors that are related to the choice to rape (ex. drug abuse, physical abuse in childhood, sexual abuse in childhood, bad role models etc.).

    So while I accept the claim that Black-on-White rapes are much higher than White-on-Black rapes in America I believe that the estimates are exaggerated and more importantly the explanations of racists are completely unfounded (e.g. Blacks rape White women disproportionately because they are genetically prone to do so or because of racist motivations like seeing them as forbidden fruit that they need to take advantage of or revenge for slavery or whatever nonsense White Supremacists want to make up to say that Black men lust after White women and are out to get them).
     
  14. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    You're wrong again. There was nothing emotional about my previous comment. Your imputation of "heat" is a self-serving falsehood. You said it because it makes you seem rational, which would tend to make people reading this discussion think you might be right. On the contrary, you are wrong, and you're trying to disguise your entirely unsubstantiated position with clever rhetoric. I think the technique you're using has been called DARVO, an acronym that means: "Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim-Offender."

    You're wrong again. I told you that there were photos showing Zimmerman's broken and bloody nose, and that scarring on the back of his head could be seen in a video made as Zimmerman was led into the Sanford police station for an interview. I assume that this evidence can still be located on the web. I won't do the work of finding it for you. I know it's there because I've already seen it.

    Further, I corrected a falsehood you made about the 911 audio tape: the one where you said the dispatcher told Zimmerman that he must not follow Trayvon Martin, when, in fact, the dispatcher only said that it wasn't necessary. I also corrected your deceptive summary about how long Zimmerman followed Martin following that exchange (12 seconds), after which Zimmerman quit following, turned around, and began walking back to his SUV. You can discover all of these facts simply by listening to the audio from the 911 call. You have been fabricating a false summary of events from the start.

    George Zimmerman was never caught in any lies about what happened between himself and Trayvon Martin. The liars at the trial were all among the witnesses for Trayvon Martin's family, notably Rachel Jeantel. Zimmerman's story never changed, and it was never shown to be in conflict with any material evidence.

    OJ Simpson was probably guilty of killing his wife and her lover. The jury found him "not guilty" because they decided that the evidence presented by the prosecution didn't meet the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." But don't change the subject, okay? The jury at George Zimmerman's trial gave the same verdict for the same reasons, but in that case the evidence that Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin was justified by reason of necessary self-defense was quite strong.

    I don't know enough about the Roderick Scott case to have an opinion, so I won't express one. But don't change the subject, okay?

    Me? Dodge questions? HA! I've answered you point-by-point. Your saying that was simply more of your effort to make yourself seem rational by cleverly accusing me of your own failings.

    Bias does exist in the criminal justice system, but it is against whites, not blacks. That's true even if blacks do get harsher sentences for the same crime sometimes. The reason for that isn't racism, but recidivism. Blacks are far more likely than whites to be facing a judge for second, third, fourth, or more offenses. It is a principle in justice that if the previous penalty didn't deter repetitions of the crime, then a stronger punishment is called for. And that is why the average penalty for a black offender is somewhat harsher than that for a white offender. It would happen even if judges imposing the punishments could not tell which races the offenders belonged to.

    But, of course, you knew that. Everybody knows that. You were simply trying to make it appear that the increasing severity of criminal punishment with repeated offenses had a "racist" cause. It doesn't.

    Wherever bias appears explicitly in government policies, it goes against the interests of white people. For example, Janet Reno had quotas for seeking the death penalty in which she made it the policy of the federal government to try to put white defendants in capital cases to death more often than in the cases of black or Hispanic defendants. This came to light when her successor in office, John Ashcroft, decided to publicize Reno's policies. If it were not for this bias against whites, the penalties against blacks would be harsher more of the time than they already are.

    Blacks just plain commit crimes more often than whites do, and the only thing the bias in the justice system does is partially shield blacks from suffering punishments as much as whites would suffer them if they behaved like the blacks do.

    Just listen to the audio track of the 911 call. That's where you find out that Zimmerman gave up following Martin, and was going back to his SUV, prior to the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman did not chase Martin down. Instead, Martin chased Zimmerman down. Why? In order to initiate an altercation.

    I see that you are still preaching the lie that the dispatcher "instructed" Zimmerman not to pursue Martin. The dispatcher didn't "instruct" Zimmerman to do, or not to do, anything. The dispatcher's exact words were: "We don't need you to do that." That is clearly not a command not to pursue. It was advice that pursuit wasn't required.

    Twelve seconds after the dispatcher made that comment, Zimmerman then turned around and began walking back to his vehicle, still talking with the dispatcher. Zimmerman and the dispatcher made arrangements for a police car to meet up with Zimmerman in the gated community. Then the conversation ended and Zimmerman hung up his phone. A few seconds later, Trayvon Martin caught up with Zimmerman from behind.

    At Zimmerman's trial, one of the witnesses said that she heard someone running from the direction of Trayvon Martin's father's house toward where the fight happened. That would have been Trayvon Martin, catching up with Zimmerman, who was going back to his vehicle.

    Trayvon Martin could have gone into his father's girlfriend's home to watch TV until bedtime. But, instead, he chose to chase down George Zimmerman and begin the fight in which he was killed.

    After a week of denying the injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head, the MSM grudgingly admit that those injuries existed and that they do appear in the video made in the Sanford police station garage when Zimmerman was brought in for questioning. Those injuries indicate that George Zimmerman was telling the truth about his encounter with Trayvon Martin.

    Oh, I'm sure that Trayvon Martin didn't leave his father's house in order to find a white (or Hispanic) man to beat up. He went to the convenience store to buy something. Trayvon Martin's decision to attack George Zimmerman came during his conversation with Rachel Jeantel. Martin wanted to prove himself tough, to get street cred.

    Martin didn't know that Zimmerman was armed until Zimmerman's jacket came partly open and the gun was exposed. Both men grabbed for the gun at the same time. Zimmerman was faster.

    Ah, that's not what "depraved mind" means. The community that Zimmerman was appointed to help safeguard as a community watchman had been having a problem with burglaries. In the 911 audio, he used the plural (punks) not the singular (punk) form of the word. He could not have been speaking about Trayvon Martin in particular, therefore. He was speaking of the burglars, from whose crimes he was trying to protect his fellow citizens. Whether Trayvon Martin was one of them, Zimmerman didn't know. He followed Martin in order to find out the answer to that question, not to start a fight with him.

    There's nothing at all wrong with being a responsible citizen in regard to keeping your community safe. If Trayvon Martin had simply stopped and greeted Zimmerman, and explained that he was new to the gated community, but that he belonged there because he had moved into the home of his father's girlfriend and was therefore at least a temporary legitimate resident, then nothing bad would have happened to anybody. Zimmerman would have said something like, "It's nice to meet you, Trayvon. Enjoy your stay."

    Rachel Jeantel discredited herself by lying in a courtroom. I merely pointed this fact out. And apparently I have to point out something else, too.

    You see, Zimmerman never had to prove himself innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not how it works. Instead, the prosecution had to prove that Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury, who had all of the evidence shown to them, who heard all of the testimony. They decided that Zimmerman had not been proved guilty, and that was that. Whether Zimmerman did or didn't do every possible thing he might have done to make shooting Martin unnecessary isn't a relevant question.

    Make your question more clear, and I will answer it. Who is this "man"? Did someone call Zimmerman an N-Word lover? I have not heard this accusation before now.

    You're wrong again. Zimmerman IS credible. What makes someone not-credible? Getting caught in lies does. Zimmerman was never caught lying about what happened between himself and Trayvon Martin, as was (for example) Rachel Jeantel. What else might make someone not-credible? Changing your story does. Zimmerman never changed his description of what happened between himself and Trayvon Martin. Hence, George Zimmerman's description is CREDIBLE. It isn't contradicted by the evidence. It didn't change from the proverbial Day One.

    Your characterization of Zimmerman as not-credible is simply wishful thinking, made into a confident sounding assertion. In other words: bull poop.

    Now, George Zimmerman might have an unsavory personality. I don't know him. But we aren't concerned with whether he is, or isn't, "a scumbag." Don't change the subject. We are concerned with what happened between himself and Trayvon Martin. In that respect, Zimmerman is by far the more credible party, according to my best understanding and that of the jury at Zimmerman's trial.

    You're wrong yet again. The statistical samplying isn't "flawed." It was done the way sampling is always done. No procedural error was made by the Department of Justice. However, the sample size is TOO SMALL TO CALCULATE A RATIO WITH PRECISION. That's all. An order-of-magnitude estimate can still be made, and that's quite enough to prove that the racists are essentially correct. Those racists might be trying to assert more precision than they should, given the smallness of the white-on-black rapes sample size, but (once again) that's all you can say to criticize it. The basic fact is correct: blacks rape whites at per capita rates much, much higher than the racial reverse.

    I'm sure that most black men who rape don't care about the race of their victims. But some of them certainly do, because they have said so. Some black men have even written books in which they claimed to have raped white women as an insurrectionary act against white society. Of course, not all of the blacks who target white women for rape announce their racist motives. Only a small fraction of them go so far as that. Mostly, they're rather sneaky about their reasons.

    The NCVS does (we have already agreed) have a small sample size for white-on-black rapes. There aren't many of them in the sample, so when you extrapolate the number of rapes in the sample to the number of rapes in the population, a little variation in the former translates into a lot of variation in the latter. It's like what happens if you shrink a JPG image to 10% of its original size and then expand it back again: you lose resolution, and the scene is blurrier than it was originally. But you can usually still see what it shows. The NCVS tables don't enable precise calculation of the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black rapes, or of the exact numbers of white-on-black rapes in a given year, but they are good enough to prove that the racists are essentially correct when they say that blacks rape whites much more than the reverse.

    Furthermore, the FBI UCR arrest data provides some of the precision that the NCVS lacks, and the same picture emerges from that data set too.

    In regard to #3, let me make it clear that I don't care why black men rape white women. I want them prevented from doing it, even if they must be shot. We can all make excuses. I've noticed that blacks make more excuses for their failures than anyone else does.

    As for points #1 and #2, they don't really matter. They don't matter because the PER CAPITA rate ratio of black-on-white rape to white-on-black rape is much greater than 1.000. If the difference in the rates were merely a few percent, then those points might have some significance. But, instead, we are dealing with orders of magnitude. (An order of magnitude is a factor of ten.)

    I've made a comparison with someone trying to decide whether the average Californian or the average Nevadan is the more crime-prone. California has a much higher population than Nevada does, so simply comparing total numbers of crimes in each state would be unfair to the Californians. What you do, if getting at the truth is what you intend, is divide the number of crimes in each state by that state's population to get the per capita crime rates. Than you can compare the per capita crime rates to see which state has the more criminally inclined population.

    It works the same way with races.

    Also, it is the perpetrator of a crime who decides that a crime will take place, and who the victim will be. The victim does not make these decisions. That's one of the reasons the arrest data in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports is better than the NCVS data.

    Actually, what the racists did was take the average values from the samples. Blacks usually rape between 12,000 and 18,000 white women in a typical year. The racists saw that spread and used the average figure: 15,000. (The unscrupulous racists multiplied it by two.) The racists saw the words "fewer than ten" in the survey text and decided to go with five. Then it was 15,000 divided by five equals 3000, and they began telling everybody that blacks rape whites three thousand times more often than whites rape blacks.

    Thus, the racists made a guestimate that expresses more precision than is justified by the NCVS data set. However, the basic idea is sound, which is that black rape whites "hundreds or thousands of times more often" than whites rape blacks. That much is certainly true.
     
  15. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There really is no need to get in to a long-winded back and fourth about the George Zimmerman case. I will say this, his injuries only prove a physical altercation occurred not that he acted in self-defense. You keep insisting that his narrative is the truth when you don't know that and I consider that to be dishonest.

    Now as far as interracial rape is concerned which is the real topic of the thread I have acknowledged that Black-on-White rape is much higher than White-on-Black rape. I have also explained why the estimates for the figures presented by racists are not reliable. My point is simply that the number for Black-on-White rapes is not as high as is commonly claimed and White-on-Black rapes are not as low as commonly claimed (e.g. 30,000 vs. 10 or near zero). For motive I did acknowledge that some Black rapists probably target White women as victims because they are White and I know there is evidence of this in some cases but no proof that this is what is going on in most cases. I would liked to see all rapists punished to the fullest extent of the law and as many rapes prevented as possible regardless of the race of perpetrators or victims. Any decent person would agree.

    This is the myth that needs to be debunked because it is based on falsehoods:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Odd, the FBI crime statistics used to include sexual assaults by race, they no longer do, that is why there is this sampling. You can look at each murder, robbery, hate crime, etc and see the actual numbers, but for some reason under the Obama regime, race was removed from FBI reporting of sexual assaults. The idea that this sampling is somehow wrong or inaccurate is the product of a dishonest liberal regime...
     
  17. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    That's correct. The year in which Barack Obama was elected, 2008, saw a curtailment of details regarding race in the FBI's published crime statistics. With the election of a black president, to whom the FBI must bow, we lost a measure of quality in our official crime records. The only black president ever elected didn't want the public to have complete and accurate information regarding race differences in criminal activity, because it corroborated what "racists" have been saying for the past 80 years. When Obama had the power to deny the public that information, he did. I'm assuming that the reduction in publicly available data and the election of Barack Obama, occurring in the same year, wasn't a coincidence.
     
  18. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's save some time with some real recent numbers, Not BS Apologetics.

    1. 89% of all Crime in NYC Nonwhite
    March 4, 2016 - by A.N. Wyatte
    http://www.newobserveronline.com/89-crime-nyc-nonwhite/

    Nonwhites commit 89% of all crime in New York City, including 97.7% of all shootings[/U], 96% of all robberies, 94.2% of all Murders, 94.9% of all Juvenile Felony and Misdemeanor crimes, and 90.6% of all Rapes.

    These figures are contained in the New York City Police Department’s latest “Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City” report, which covers the dates January 1 to December 31, 2015. It can be found on the New York Government website here (PDF).
    http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/analysis_and_planning/crime_and_enforcement_activity.shtml

    The report is almost Unique in present-day America because it Openly presents statistics on race and crime compiled from the New York City Police Department’s records management system—statistics that are most often Suppressed by other police departments.

    In addition, the NYPD breaks down the racial categories correctly, listing “Hispanic” separately instead of grouping it together with “white,” which is what most of the US government does (thereby artificially inflating the “white” crime levels).


    2. 'Color of Crime' update/summary excerpts
    https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/

    Crime rates

    There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the Lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups. In 2013, a black was Six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
    ......
    Urban centers

    In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for Murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting”—defined as firing a Bullet that hits someone—a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.

    If New York City were all white, the Murder rate would drop by 91%, the robbery rate by 81%, and the Shootings rate by 97%.

    In an all-white Chicago, Murder would decline 90%, RAPE by 81%, and robbery by 90%.

    `
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
  19. Dropship

    Dropship Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes we heard about the case here in Britain, namely black prowler Trayvon Martin jumped on Neighbourhood Watchman George Zimmerman after dark and began smashing his head on the ground, so Mr. Z had to shoot him in self defence and a jury rightly found him not guilty. Is that about the size of it?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
  20. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Old news. Next
     
  21. willburroughs

    willburroughs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    One correction: they did not rape the woman.
     
  22. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Mostly, that is correct. However, some of the details are wrong.

    Trayvon Martin was a black teenager with a history of committing violent assaults and violating the laws regarding the possession of certain drugs or herbs, including marijuana. He isn't known to have been "a prowler," but merely a black teenager made troublesome by being poorly raised in a single-mother home. Trayvon Martin was, just before he was killed, a tall, athletic young man, much tougher and meaner-looking than the photo of him made five years previously, which the media use as their most common representation of him. Trayvon had become so difficult to manage that his mother had sent him to live with his father for a time, and she gave her ex-husband explicit instructions to "straighten him up."

    But Trayvon Martin's criminal career had not progressed to the point at which he might be described as a prowler. Or, I should say, not so far as I know. His attack on George Zimmerman, which cost him his life, was most likely motivated by innate aggression, machismo, and a desire to prove himself fearless, a force to be reckoned with, and someone whom no one else can with impunity push around.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
    Dropship likes this.
  23. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What is your opinion of George Zimmerman's history of violence and aggressive behavior prior to and after he killed Trayvon Martin?
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  24. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Many people are at least a little violent, at least occasionally. It's a matter of frequency and amplitude, and standard deviations above or below the mean in either the frequency or the amplitude of violent actions.

    George Zimmerman's deviation from the averages is in the noise.
    His 'violence signals' have been researched by those who are hostile to him, and subjected to amplification and other signal processing, not always honestly done. You might remember that a female ABC news reporter deceptively edited the audio recording of George Zimmerman's 911 call to the police dispatcher in such a way as to give the public the false impression that Zimmerman had had "racist reasons" for following Trayvon Martin.

    Trayvon Martin's deviation from the averages had a quite respectable signal-to-noise ratio. He started fights often. He beat people senseless, bloody, or both. His mother could not manage him and sent him to live with her ex-husband (Travyon's father), whom she told to straighten him up. He was aggressive. He easily became hostile. And he was much more physically imposing than the photo of him, made at age 12, makes him seem.
     
  25. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I've known about that miscategorization of Hispanics since the 1990s. Over the years, I've learned that an approximate correction for a ratio of black-offenders to "white"-offenders for almost any specified crime can be made by made by multiplying it by 4/3 (four thirds), in order to estimate the ratio of black-offenders to white-offenders, without the contamination of the Hispanics in the white offender totals.

    Another rule of thumb. If you know, for a given area, within a given time window, both the black per capita rate for the perpetration of a specified crime and the white per capita perpetration rate for the same crime, then you can make a reasonably good estimate for the Hispanic per capita perpetration rate by finding the geometric average of the white and black rates.

    For example, if the black rate for committing murder is 81 murders per 100,000 population per year, and the white rate is 11 murders per 100,000 population per year, then the Hispanic rate will (probably) be close to 30 murders per 100,000 population per year. It's seldom four-significant-figure precise, but it's usually one- or two-significant-figure close.
     

Share This Page