Majority Of White Americans Say They Face Discrimination

originally posted by: Merlynn
a reply to: Greven

Mother Jones and many others do not count it. Not a lie, the truth. Most go by Mother Jones.

The one you are sighting has 4 or more people need to be shot, better than most, all I go by is multiple--2 is multiple.

A lot of unknowns, most of the unknowns (especially in the city) will be black shooters. Would make even my stat go up.

Strange, when you wrote:

And you don't think where you get your info has an agenda?

They don't include incidents like the the shooting near Nashville, TN.

Did I cite Mother Jones? I'm not "most" and you specifically directed your remarks to me.
The fact that you think you didn't lie is amazing. You explicitly said my source did not mention that particular shooting, but it does mention it. This is known as 'lying' to most of humanity.

You didn't even bother to look and just claimed right away that the source I used didn't mention it. Maybe try doing that instead of making wild claims next time.

Not sure if I should laugh, cry or drink heavily...

Seeing the usual suspects do back flips to justify the same behavior that started the civil rights movement (rightfully so by the way) being directed at white people today because at some point in their family history they may have had a rich family member or benefited because of some racist twat waffle makes it ok.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Kettu

They might not.. if there names are Jaden Smith lol...

I think that ithe problem Is that “White privledge” isn’t accurate...it is actually “black discrimination.”

I think that’s what provides the false arguments people use to pretend there is no institutional racism.

If your born in a trailer park your not gonna have a much easier time than your average black guy.

My black friend and I had a long talk one night, and he told me how when he was a young teenager his dad had "the talk" with him. He told him, "Son, it's a white man's world. You've got to be careful, and go along to get along."

Outside of niche products and slices of the entertainment industry, western society is truly geared for, and indeed designed to satisfy "white people". In a sense, it actually is a "white man's world".

Now, whether or not that fact translates into some kind of discrimination ... that's a difficult question to answer. I will say that it probably doesn't help with unspoken biases our society perpetuates.

There seems to have been an intentional push to sensationalize absurd examples of white/black people in order to divide and maintain racial rivalry. Both black and white people are typecast into specific Holywood roles, and TV news media carefully chooses loaded keywords for one skin color, or another skin color. A black kid caught stealing a car is a "thug" whereas a white kid caught stealing a car is a "juvenile delinquent" (if it is even reported at all).

When you keep the middle and lower classes of America fighting over something stupid like race, they can't all unite and realize that the top .1% (not even the 1%, but the zero-point-one-percent) has been screwing everyone.

a reply to: ketsuko

I’m not the nearly nonexistent conservative stereotype of a cartoon liberal...

You know the ones who think shiria law should dominate America, abortion should be extended till the kid is 5, that guns should be banned and confiscated, exc , exc, exc..

The ones who play a poker game every Monday with Santa, the Easter bunny and a unicorn...

That Fox News is always saying secretly runs America..

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Greven

I think his point was that just because your demographic suffers more under x, y or z statistic doesn't necessarily mean there's systemic discrimination going on. Clearly there is some gender discrimination with police, I mean it's common knowledge women get out of tickets easier, they even brag about it. But for violent crime, men just commit more, so they get arrested more. It's not discrimination. As you said it's just kind of a fact of nature.

That being said, what other statistics have underlying explanations besides discrimination?

Statistically, one can say that men are more violent than women and commit more violent crime than women, simply because there are vastly fewer women who do this sort of thing. It's harder to go elsewhere, though - part of it is because people misunderstand the FBI crime statistics and claim that the numbers say something they do not.

Homicide is the most-cleared form of crime, but only about 2/3rds of homicides are ever cleared. Note that 'cleared' doesn't mean convicted, but that someone was charged with the crime or the person they would charge with the crime has since died. This leaves just over 1/3rd of all homicides not cleared - no suspect at all. For example, you can't say that, statistically-speaking, black men commit more murder than white men because of that 34% missing figure.

You can say that black men were charged (dead or alive) with murder more than white men were. It just leaves out a lot of the story. Additionally, charges don't always stick; about 70% of murder charges result in a conviction (though black men are convicted at higher rates than white men, let's suppose it's equal for the math bit below). There's also a history of black men being charged with crimes they didn't commit at higher rates than whites, but we can ignore that for our purposes.

Suppose 1000 homicides occurred. 340 are not cleared. Of the 660 that are cleared, black men are charged 343 times, and white men are charged 317 times. 240 black men are convicted of murder, and 222 white men are convicted of murder.

Now we have black men convicted of 240 murders, and white men convicted of 222 murders. We can't say black men commit more murders because we only have 462 of the 1000 total homicides. There are 538 murders not accounted for here, and there is no validity in splitting the unsolved murders down the line due to the huge unknown factor in uncleared homicides.

Those 538 murders could be from black men, or could be from white men, but are more likely to be from some proportion of each. We don't know, and we cannot say.

This ginores so much.

For example, we know that a hug proportion (almost half) of all murder victims are black youths. We no for a fact that the majority of time, murders occur within the same race.

So are we really to believe when there is an unsolved murder in an inner city black neighborhood that some white guy snuck in and did it?

But ok, by that same train of thought, all of those unsolved murders could have been committed by women, so how dare you say men commit many more violent crimes.

You are also leaving out proportions by just looking at raw numbers.

If raw numbers are all that matter, then we clearly see that every year more white people are killed by cops than blacks; therefore we can infer cops are racist towards whites.

Of course that is nonsense, because Whites are such a higher percentage of people.

Much in the same way we can see that stats show about half of all homicide arrests and victims are black, despite the fact they make up around 13% of the population.

The point is; if you are allowed to say the legal system is harsher on men because they are more violent, then people should be aallowed to make that argument regarding race.

Hmm, let's look at some other statistics..

Homicide rate per 100,000 (this has been declining fairly steadily for awhile):
1980: 10.2
1990: 9.4
2000: 5.5
2010: 4.8

U.S. Population:
1980: 83.15% white, 11.69% black
1990: 80.28% white, 12.05% black
2000: 75.14% white, 12.32% black
2010: 72.41% white, 12.61% black

Interesting that murder rates have declined as the population of whites has decreased and the population of blacks has increased.

a reply to: Greven

You did not site. So far I have gone through many links from your site and I come up with page not found. Did these multiple shootings even happen? So far 4 are not found, all 4 I have tried are not found. So much for your "reputable" site. I should be able to at least find a description from a witness on some of these cases, if there was a good address.

Maybe you are the one ling, through your "reputable" site.

a reply to: Kettu

There is an intentional effort to sensationalize...it just isn’t some illuminati doing it.

It’s profitable. Demogagary always has been profitable.

People like to be righteously angry.. they like to blame something they can see and touch on their problems.


Why don’t they actually put just an once of deductive reasoning into it is the question...

If they took about 3 seconds to contemplate the logistical requirements to buy off every global media group, politician, celeb, Union, college professor, scientist , exc to hate on conservative Republicans. Modern conservatism doesn’t exist..

I don’t think it is sustainable AFTER your in power though..then you can only blame your own. Which causes you to eat yourself from the inside.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic

See but I think you are not thinking through your claims here.

You claim institutional discrimination hurts minorities and women.

Then you cite the legal system.

Men are arrested more, convicted more, suffer more violence from police, have longer sentences And have far worse conditions in jail than women.

In fact, the difference in treatment in these areas between men and women is far greater than between black and white.

So I guess you are admitting, men suffer from rampant institutional discrimination.

Men are more violent than women and commit much more crime than women.

This is not a surprising fact to anyone who has paid any attention to anything in human history.

Wow, you sound just like the people who say blacks are more violent and commit more crime.

Truth hurts, huh?

The fact is, 1/3rd of murders (and even worse rates for other forms of crime) are not cleared. We don't know who did them. You can't say 'blacks are more violent and commit more crime' because the huge unknowns in the statistics do not support that.

What is clear from statistics, even if every single uncleared murder were assigned to a woman, men would still have committed more murders. Therefore, we can unequivocally say that men are more violent than women.

This is not rocket science. Your analogy is idiotic.

This has to be one of the dumbest points I have ever seen raised.

But ok lets roll with this.

1/3 of all murders aren't solved. We will go with that.

That means 2/3 are solved.

about one half all all of those that are solved are committed by black people.

So lets make this simple and just say the other half that were solved were committed by one people.

that means 1/3 of murders were committed by blacks, 1/3 committed by whites, and 1/3 unsolved.

So lets just say for the sake of argument that not one of those unsolved murders were committed by blacks, and all by whites.

That means blacks commit 1/3 of all murder, and whites 2/3.

Whites are about 63% of the population then and would commit about 66% of murders.

Blacks are about 14% of the population, but they commit about 33% of murders.

So even under your ridiculous conditions, blacks are more than 2 times more likely to commit murders than whites.

So people have just as much a right to say blacks get treated harsher because they commit more murders than you do to say that about men.

originally posted by: Merlynn
a reply to: Greven

You did not site. So far I have gone through many links from your site and I come up with page not found. Did these multiple shootings even happen? So far 4 are not found, all 4 I have tried are not found. So much for your "reputable" site. I should be able to at least find a description from a witness on some of these cases, if there was a good address.

Maybe you are the one ling, through your "reputable" site.

Ah yes, the "oh crap I messed up and got caught better deflect deflect deflect" maneuver.

Plenty of links from www.massshootingtracker.org... work. A search on the internet for a particular date, location, and 'shooting' will turn up something, too. Sometimes, the articles they link to get moved afterwards - news sites (like ABC) sometimes move stories to different locations, which breaks links to said stories by aggregation sites like the Mass Shooting Tracker.

It's a deficiency in the way we've structured URLs, unfortunately. Things can move, and unless you keep up with the movement regularly, links get broken.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Greven

I think his point was that just because your demographic suffers more under x, y or z statistic doesn't necessarily mean there's systemic discrimination going on. Clearly there is some gender discrimination with police, I mean it's common knowledge women get out of tickets easier, they even brag about it. But for violent crime, men just commit more, so they get arrested more. It's not discrimination. As you said it's just kind of a fact of nature.

That being said, what other statistics have underlying explanations besides discrimination?

Statistically, one can say that men are more violent than women and commit more violent crime than women, simply because there are vastly fewer women who do this sort of thing. It's harder to go elsewhere, though - part of it is because people misunderstand the FBI crime statistics and claim that the numbers say something they do not.

Homicide is the most-cleared form of crime, but only about 2/3rds of homicides are ever cleared. Note that 'cleared' doesn't mean convicted, but that someone was charged with the crime or the person they would charge with the crime has since died. This leaves just over 1/3rd of all homicides not cleared - no suspect at all. For example, you can't say that, statistically-speaking, black men commit more murder than white men because of that 34% missing figure.

You can say that black men were charged (dead or alive) with murder more than white men were. It just leaves out a lot of the story. Additionally, charges don't always stick; about 70% of murder charges result in a conviction (though black men are convicted at higher rates than white men, let's suppose it's equal for the math bit below). There's also a history of black men being charged with crimes they didn't commit at higher rates than whites, but we can ignore that for our purposes.

Suppose 1000 homicides occurred. 340 are not cleared. Of the 660 that are cleared, black men are charged 343 times, and white men are charged 317 times. 240 black men are convicted of murder, and 222 white men are convicted of murder.

Now we have black men convicted of 240 murders, and white men convicted of 222 murders. We can't say black men commit more murders because we only have 462 of the 1000 total homicides. There are 538 murders not accounted for here, and there is no validity in splitting the unsolved murders down the line due to the huge unknown factor in uncleared homicides.

Those 538 murders could be from black men, or could be from white men, but are more likely to be from some proportion of each. We don't know, and we cannot say.

This ginores so much.

For example, we know that a hug proportion (almost half) of all murder victims are black youths. We no for a fact that the majority of time, murders occur within the same race.

So are we really to believe when there is an unsolved murder in an inner city black neighborhood that some white guy snuck in and did it?

But ok, by that same train of thought, all of those unsolved murders could have been committed by women, so how dare you say men commit many more violent crimes.

You are also leaving out proportions by just looking at raw numbers.

If raw numbers are all that matter, then we clearly see that every year more white people are killed by cops than blacks; therefore we can infer cops are racist towards whites.

Of course that is nonsense, because Whites are such a higher percentage of people.

Much in the same way we can see that stats show about half of all homicide arrests and victims are black, despite the fact they make up around 13% of the population.

The point is; if you are allowed to say the legal system is harsher on men because they are more violent, then people should be aallowed to make that argument regarding race.

Hmm, let's look at some other statistics..

Homicide rate per 100,000 (this has been declining fairly steadily for awhile):
1980: 10.2
1990: 9.4
2000: 5.5
2010: 4.8

U.S. Population:
1980: 83.15% white, 11.69% black
1990: 80.28% white, 12.05% black
2000: 75.14% white, 12.32% black
2010: 72.41% white, 12.61% black

Interesting that murder rates have declined as the population of whites has decreased and the population of blacks has increased.

What kind of nonsense is this now?

Unreal.

Lest see what also has increased over that time.

The wealth gap, single parent households, obesity, deforestation, fish populations have decreased, the US place in education has decreased, etc.

So I guess the increases in blacks must be responsible for all of this?

I am going to assume you are just being tongue in cheek with this claim, because if not you have no grasp of how stats work whatsoever.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic

See but I think you are not thinking through your claims here.

You claim institutional discrimination hurts minorities and women.

Then you cite the legal system.

Men are arrested more, convicted more, suffer more violence from police, have longer sentences And have far worse conditions in jail than women.

In fact, the difference in treatment in these areas between men and women is far greater than between black and white.

So I guess you are admitting, men suffer from rampant institutional discrimination.

Men are more violent than women and commit much more crime than women.

This is not a surprising fact to anyone who has paid any attention to anything in human history.

Wow, you sound just like the people who say blacks are more violent and commit more crime.

Truth hurts, huh?

The fact is, 1/3rd of murders (and even worse rates for other forms of crime) are not cleared. We don't know who did them. You can't say 'blacks are more violent and commit more crime' because the huge unknowns in the statistics do not support that.

What is clear from statistics, even if every single uncleared murder were assigned to a woman, men would still have committed more murders. Therefore, we can unequivocally say that men are more violent than women.

This is not rocket science. Your analogy is idiotic.

This has to be one of the dumbest point I have ever seen raised.

But ok lets roll with this.

1/3 of all murders aren't solved. We will go with that.

That means 2/3 are solved.

about one half all all of those that are solved are committed by black people.

So lets make this simle and just say the other half that were solved were committed by one people.

that means 1/3 of murders were committed by blacks, 1/3 committed by whites, and 1/3 unsolved.

So lets just say for the sake of argument that not one of those unsolved murders were committed by blacks, and all by whites.

That means blacks commit 1/3 of all murder, and whites 2/3.

Whites are about 63% of the population then and would commit about 66% of murders.

Blacks are about 14% of the population, but they commit about 33% of murders.

So even under your ridiculous conditions, blacks are more than 2 times more likely to commit murders than whites.

So people have just as much a right to say blacks get treated harsher because they commit more murders than you do to say that about men.





Thats

You misunderstand.

They're not "solved" but "cleared" - charges were filed, or the person who they would file charges against has died.

That's pre-trial, too; are people not innocent until proven guilty?

There's also the 30% rate of failure in convicting someone charged with homicide.

So now we're at the example I mentioned earlier:

originally posted by: Greven
Suppose 1000 homicides occurred. 340 are not cleared. Of the 660 that are cleared, black men are charged 343 times, and white men are charged 317 times. 240 black men are convicted of murder, and 222 white men are convicted of murder.

Now we have black men convicted of 240 murders, and white men convicted of 222 murders. We can't say black men commit more murders because we only have 462 of the 1000 total homicides. There are 538 murders not accounted for here, and there is no validity in splitting the unsolved murders down the line due to the huge unknown factor in uncleared homicides.

Those 538 murders could be from black men, or could be from white men, but are more likely to be from some proportion of each. We don't know, and we cannot say.

Sorry that you don't like reality.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Greven

I think his point was that just because your demographic suffers more under x, y or z statistic doesn't necessarily mean there's systemic discrimination going on. Clearly there is some gender discrimination with police, I mean it's common knowledge women get out of tickets easier, they even brag about it. But for violent crime, men just commit more, so they get arrested more. It's not discrimination. As you said it's just kind of a fact of nature.

That being said, what other statistics have underlying explanations besides discrimination?

Statistically, one can say that men are more violent than women and commit more violent crime than women, simply because there are vastly fewer women who do this sort of thing. It's harder to go elsewhere, though - part of it is because people misunderstand the FBI crime statistics and claim that the numbers say something they do not.

Homicide is the most-cleared form of crime, but only about 2/3rds of homicides are ever cleared. Note that 'cleared' doesn't mean convicted, but that someone was charged with the crime or the person they would charge with the crime has since died. This leaves just over 1/3rd of all homicides not cleared - no suspect at all. For example, you can't say that, statistically-speaking, black men commit more murder than white men because of that 34% missing figure.

You can say that black men were charged (dead or alive) with murder more than white men were. It just leaves out a lot of the story. Additionally, charges don't always stick; about 70% of murder charges result in a conviction (though black men are convicted at higher rates than white men, let's suppose it's equal for the math bit below). There's also a history of black men being charged with crimes they didn't commit at higher rates than whites, but we can ignore that for our purposes.

Suppose 1000 homicides occurred. 340 are not cleared. Of the 660 that are cleared, black men are charged 343 times, and white men are charged 317 times. 240 black men are convicted of murder, and 222 white men are convicted of murder.

Now we have black men convicted of 240 murders, and white men convicted of 222 murders. We can't say black men commit more murders because we only have 462 of the 1000 total homicides. There are 538 murders not accounted for here, and there is no validity in splitting the unsolved murders down the line due to the huge unknown factor in uncleared homicides.

Those 538 murders could be from black men, or could be from white men, but are more likely to be from some proportion of each. We don't know, and we cannot say.

This ginores so much.

For example, we know that a hug proportion (almost half) of all murder victims are black youths. We no for a fact that the majority of time, murders occur within the same race.

So are we really to believe when there is an unsolved murder in an inner city black neighborhood that some white guy snuck in and did it?

But ok, by that same train of thought, all of those unsolved murders could have been committed by women, so how dare you say men commit many more violent crimes.

You are also leaving out proportions by just looking at raw numbers.

If raw numbers are all that matter, then we clearly see that every year more white people are killed by cops than blacks; therefore we can infer cops are racist towards whites.

Of course that is nonsense, because Whites are such a higher percentage of people.

Much in the same way we can see that stats show about half of all homicide arrests and victims are black, despite the fact they make up around 13% of the population.

The point is; if you are allowed to say the legal system is harsher on men because they are more violent, then people should be aallowed to make that argument regarding race.

Hmm, let's look at some other statistics..

Homicide rate per 100,000 (this has been declining fairly steadily for awhile):
1980: 10.2
1990: 9.4
2000: 5.5
2010: 4.8

U.S. Population:
1980: 83.15% white, 11.69% black
1990: 80.28% white, 12.05% black
2000: 75.14% white, 12.32% black
2010: 72.41% white, 12.61% black

Interesting that murder rates have declined as the population of whites has decreased and the population of blacks has increased.

What kind of nonsense is this now?

Unreal.

Lest see what also has increased over that time.

The wealth gap, single parent households, obesity, deforestation, fish populations have decreased, the US place in education has decreased, etc.

So I guess the increases in blacks must be responsible for all of this?

I am going to assume you are just being tongue in cheek with this claim, because if not you have no grasp of how stats work whatsoever.

It's an amusing note, I think.

You don't seem to like it, though. A dropping crime rate doesn't fit well with the idea that blacks (who are growing in proportion in population) are inherently violent, does it?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I'm a member of the Illuminati. I signed up for their mailing list (no joke, I get emails LMFAO trying to sell me stuff).

Anyone and everyone is a member of the Illuminati. After all, triangles kick ass.

Well, there's a finite number of resources on Earth...at least in the way we are consuming and producing them. Human civilization is horribly, horribly inefficient. Earth could support billions more people, all with much higher standards of living if we applied our technology and brainpower into doing so.

The thing is ... we're lead by the least among us (segment of the population). We're lead by our least visionary people.

The only way to keep the sideshow of humanity going is to perpetuate the class and racial warfare going, in order for the inefficient and wasteful system we've created to continue to function.

a reply to: Grambler

Have you heard of this book?

The Better Angels Of Our Nature

I doubt it would be popular here on ATS, given how most people are gluttons for doom-porn. It's actually a surprisng and eye-opening book that I really want to explore more myself:

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which he argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book contains a wealth of data simply documenting violence across time and geography. This paints a picture of massive declines in violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children. He highlights the role of nation-state monopolies on force, of commerce (making "other people become more valuable alive than dead"), of increased literacy and communication (promoting empathy), as well as a rise in a rational problem-solving orientation as possible causes of this decline in violence. He notes that, paradoxically, our impression of violence has not tracked this decline, perhaps because of increased communication,[2] and that further decline is not inevitable, but is contingent on forces harnessing our better motivations such as empathy and increases in reason.

So, while violence across the globe is literally at an all-time historical low point -- we're lead to believe through our media and perception of reality that it's a crazy, dangerous, and violent world out there.

It might make a good thread, and it's certainly on my to-read list.

a reply to: Greven

The amount of hurdles you are willing to jump through to be allowed to say its ok to say men are more violent, but not black people is disturbing.

You really want to demonize men dont you.

Yes lets take your example. There are more unsolved murders than solved ones.

For all we know, they could have all been committed by women.

Therefore you are a bigot by claiming men commit more murder.

Thanks for the admission.

a reply to: Kettu

Honestly it sounds like an interesting book that I would like to read.

My point in this discussion with Greven is that if we should refrain from saying the reason black people are treated harsher by police is because they commit more violence based on stats, then we should also refrain from saying that about men.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Doesn't change that fact that you are either an insanely hyperbolic chatbot or have learned to post like one.

Either way, it does nothing toward establishing proof of your existence which was my main point.

a reply to: Grambler

I've always said what you give is what you get.

If you treat a bunch of employees like little kids, guess what? They're going to act like little kids.

If you systematically disenfranchise a population, and set those people up with an expectation of criminality ... Would it not be surprising if that population group eventually showed signs of higher crime rates?

People tend to fit themselves into, and fill cultural expectations/stereotypes of themselves.

Obviously there's no empirical way to statistically quantify my above theory, its just something that seems to make logical sense to me.

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Grambler

I've always said what you give is what you get.

If you treat a bunch of employees like little kids, guess what? They're going to act like little kids.

If you systematically disenfranchise a population, and set those people up with an expectation of criminality ... Would it not be surprising if that population group eventually showed signs of higher crime rates?

People tend to fit themselves into, and fill cultural expectations/stereotypes of themselves.

Obviously there's no empirical way to statistically quantify my above theory, its just something that seems to make logical sense to me.

Then I guess we should extrapolate that out to whites.

If every source from schooling on into the media tells them how horrible they are, you are setting them up. What do you expect them act like?

Not only that, but all those who aren't white and hear all that stuff, how do you expect them to act toward and treat whites?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Merlynn
a reply to: Greven

You did not site. So far I have gone through many links from your site and I come up with page not found. Did these multiple shootings even happen? So far 4 are not found, all 4 I have tried are not found. So much for your "reputable" site. I should be able to at least find a description from a witness on some of these cases, if there was a good address.

Maybe you are the one ling, through your "reputable" site.

Ah yes, the "oh crap I messed up and got caught better deflect deflect deflect" maneuver.

Plenty of links from www.massshootingtracker.org... work. A search on the internet for a particular date, location, and 'shooting' will turn up something, too. Sometimes, the articles they link to get moved afterwards - news sites (like ABC) sometimes move stories to different locations, which breaks links to said stories by aggregation sites like the Mass Shooting Tracker.

It's a deficiency in the way we've structured URLs, unfortunately. Things can move, and unless you keep up with the movement regularly, links get broken.

So far I have gone through the 1st 2 months of 2016--using your site.

41 people where there is a perp name (excluding the one I could not find a pic, but it was in black neighborhood)
25 perps were black 61%
10 white 24%
6 hispanic 12%
1 asian 2%

What I noticed when the perp was black it was much harder to find a pic (not all the time, but on several). Even though Brent Morrie had several articles, the only way I could find him was going through a link that had security footage of him committing the crime.

Interesting how the real numbers look so far. Image if we use the real multiple shooting where 2 or more are shot at instead of upping the numbers.

I worked as a data analyst for several years, I know how they try and manipulate them by changing the requirements.