> In 2006, the black arrest rate for most crimes was two to nearly three times blacks’ representation in the population. Blacks constituted 39.3% of all violent-crime arrests, including 56.3% of all robbery and 34.5% of all aggravated-assault arrests, and 29.4% of all property-crime arrests.
This paragraph is presupposing that the arrest process is fair to assert that blacks deserve their higher prison sentences.
"From 1976 to 2005, blacks committed more than 52% of all murders in America."
and
"The advocates acknowledge such crime data only indirectly: by charging bias on the part of the system’s decision makers. As Obama suggested in the Martin Luther King debate, police, prosecutors and judges treat blacks and whites differently “for the same crime.”
But in fact, cops don’t over-arrest blacks and ignore white criminals. The race of criminals reported by crime victims matches arrest data. No one has ever come up with a plausible argument as to why crime victims would be biased in their reports."
The simple truth of the matter (which our entire discussion boils down to) is that blacks commit crime at a rate vastly exceeding other groups. For more stats please see: http://www.infowars.com/black-crime-facts-that-the-white-lib...
Think about that, once every 1-2 weeks. I've been pulled over 3 times in my life. Twice for speeding, once for a broken tail light.
Ie someone who jumps out a 10th story window can't blame the oppressive "gravity" for causing their death.
2. That said, I take your point that educated black men may be unfairly targeted for being pulled over. Yet I don't see how someone being pulled over results in their arrest, let alone conviction of a crime which they did not commit.
That's the issue - not that someone gets pulled over every couple of weeks (unpleasant but hardly life-altering) but that huge number of men are in prison for actually committing crime.
2. So let's say a white person and a black person in a car have the same rate of performing a crime (let's say smoking marijuana, a harmless pastime enjoyed by all races). Let's say that if a cop pulls you over while you are smoking marijuana, then you will be arrested. Well if a cop is twice as likely to pull you over if you are black, then there will be twice as many black arrests. This is a simplistic model and doesn't even factor situations where a black person gets pulled over, and definitely gets forced out of his car, handcuffed, and searched, whereas a white person might be able to cordially get away with a smile and a "Yessir".
If you read the report that explains in great detail what happened (as opposed to just saying 'well, there's no smoke without fire') - you will see what I mean: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-mi...
Eric Gardner was indeed a completely different case. His death was an unfortunate accident. The cop did not intend to kill him - he was looking for a way to subdue a very large man. I do agree that under normal circumstances it should be treated as manslaughter (ie unintended killing).
2. Your scenario is missing a very important point. I'm not saying that black arrest rates are much higher, hence this proves criminality.
Rather the rates for being convicted for serious crimes (like murder) is off the charts. Likewise victim reports of the race of crime perpetrators matches the conviction stats.
So basically the innocent black guys who just smoked weed in a car and happened to be pulled over because they're black are not going to jail for it (maybe a fine at most).
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=458...