Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hate facts!

  • Mar. 25th, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Interracial murder

The Trayvon Martin case is an opportunity to remind people of the reality of interracial crime in the United States.

For the purposes of this analysis, I'll use the term "whites" to refer to whites plus Hispanics since they get lumped together in the data. According to FBI data for 2010, 218 blacks were murdered by whites. Blacks murdered 447 whites. But this is comparing apple and oranges since whites are 6.4 times the size of the black population. If we calculate murders per 10 million in the race-specific population (interracial murder is rare), the rate is 8.82 for whites and 114.89 for blacks. So blacks kill whites at a rate 13 times higher than that of whites killing blacks.

Another way to look at it is multiply the black population by 6.4 to make it as large as whites. If it were as large, 2861 whites would have been murdered compared to the 218 whites killed by blacks.

Thirteen times. But if you notice a disparity of 1300%, you're a racist.


darthzeth wrote:
Mar. 25th, 2012 08:40 pm (UTC)
But if there were 6.4 times as many blacks, wouldn't that mean there would be more blacks victims for whites to kill? If murders and victims are equally distributed across the entire population, and race is 100% incidental (it's not, I'm just using this as a simplified model), you'd expect the larger population to include more of the victims and murders. If we're going with the 1:6.4 ratio, that's about 86% whites and 14% blacks. So for 1000 murders, you'd expect 140 murders to be black, and 120 of their victims to be white. You'd also expect 860 white murders, and 120 of their victims to be black. If you changed the ratio to 50/50, you'd expect 250 interracial murders of each type per 1000. So that would be a little more than double the interracial murder rate on *both* sides, despite more than doubling the black population, and significantly DECREASING the white population.

So I think the last line is probably an inappropriate extrapolation (ignoring the mix up of white and black at the end). I don't think you can expect the white on black murder rate to remain static as the black population increases.

Of course race is NOT independent of crime rates. Using the above model, interracial crime would be about 24% of murders, but in 2010 it was closer to 10%. Which makes sense. You usually victimize people you know, you know the people in your neighborhood, and neighborhoods are still largely racially homogenous.

The real 'racist' observation is that there are 6.4 times as many whites than blacks, but murders are almost equal parts black and white. And about 43% of victims are black. Blacks are far more likely to be murders, and blacks kill blacks at a rate way higher than than any other group kills any other group.
darthzeth wrote:
Mar. 25th, 2012 08:44 pm (UTC)
ah, the guy who posted the google doc puts it this way:

Racial ratio for black victim 64.77 A black would be 65X more likely to be killed by another black than by a white, if the two populations has equal size.

Racial ratio for white victim 1.08 A white would be 8% more likely to be killed by a black than a white, if the two populations had equal size

Although I'm not 100% sure how he got there, since the spreadsheet isn't showing the equations in this format :( And I'm a little too lazy to do the rest of the math myself >_>
livejournal wrote:
Mar. 26th, 2012 01:05 pm (UTC)
"Blacks are under attack" -- Jesse Jackson.
User foreverbeach referenced to your post from "Blacks are under attack" -- Jesse Jackson. saying: [...]
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] blacks.</a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

User <lj user="foreverbeach"> referenced to your post from <a href="">"Blacks are under attack" -- Jesse Jackson.</a> saying: [...] <a href=""Blacks kill whites at a rate 13 times higher than that of whites killing blacks.</a> [...]