Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Blah blah blah. The crime statistics speak for themselves. A huge proportion of the violent crime, especially murders, are committed by black males. No one is celebrating that fact, but when someone like the above goes out of his way to say "yeah but there's plenty of white violence so there!" then the word that comes to mind is APOLOGIST. I.e., someone who excuses or white washes the appalling levels of black violence because they don't want to believe that it could exist.
According to the bjs.gov records which are available for all to peruse, half the gun murders are committed by black males. It's the raw, painful truth. If not for this one violent group, there would be no debate on gun control because America would have a relatively low per capita gun murder rate, in line with Canada and Western Europe. Most white gun deaths are from suicide, not from shooting others.
The sooner that Americans face up to the reality of the situation, the sooner we can start actually solving these problems. The first step to solving a problem is to identify it accurately, and to stop pretending that it doesn't exist or similar nonsense as is the case with the knockout game. It exists, it's spreading, and it's time to throw the book at the kids who are doing it. Juvie, boot camps, adult lockup--frankly I don't care anymore, just get them off the streets. They made their choice, now let them do their time.
The stats don't lie. I agree with you, and the fact of the matter is violent crime is usually committed on members of the same race. You can racialize the violence in America and solely acknowledge that the Black on Black violent crime rate is out of control. Cool. But it won't change the fact that whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks.
The whole concept of Black on Black violence is meant to give America a sole group to throw under the bus. Propaganda really. Especially when you look at the history of the US. When Blacks were still mostly agrarian, and before the great migration, when most gun crimes were committed by whites, and the Black inner-city crime rates were virtually non-existent, from the violent periods of western expansion and all the violence and lawlessness going on in those frontier towns, all the way to the days of inner-city European-based organized crime, the media didn't coin terms like White-ON-White or Euro on-Euro crime. Criminals were just that. Criminals. PERIOD. Whites didn't hold each other accountable for the evil deeds of the low-lifes and miscreants their own communities. They were just treated as criminals, and folks who fell through the cracks of society, all on their own.
Even as the Klan was formed, and Blacks were being harassed and lynched and houses bombed, the Klan was just seen as a group of terrorist on their own, and not seen as a larger problem brought on by white society and white supremacy. In other words, White criminality was just treated as the exception. As Blacks start fleeing the South, and start moving to Northern ghettos and slums, overcrowding happens, white flight happens, drugs and violence infiltrate the communities in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, now buzzwords all-of-a-sudden like Black-on-Black crime are coined.
All of a sudden crime is completely put within the contexts of race in this country, whereas 30, 40, 50,yrs earlier, those same criminal acts when committed by folks of a different hue , those criminal would have been just looked as criminal acts. The term Black-on-Black crime then drums up racial hysteria. Now things like drug-using, drug-dealing, youth gangs, and deliquency ae treated, seen, and presented as things solely culturally linked to the Black community, even though it was/is happening in every inner-city community, regardless of race.
Why should any Black person be held accountable or be put on trial for every wayward teen in their community, anymore than White suburban parents should be put on trial for Jared Loughtner or Adam Lanza. Why must Blacks always explain themselves, for what the wayward minority does? Because no matter how violent a city like Chicago is, there are still more Black kids who aren't killers than those who are killers.
The stats don't lie. I agree with you, and the fact of the matter is violent crime is usually committed on members of the same race. You can racialize the violence in America and solely acknowledge that the Black on Black violent crime rate is out of control. Cool. But it won't change the fact that whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks.
The whole concept of Black on Black violence is meant to give America a sole group to throw under the bus. Propaganda really. Especially when you look at the history of the US. When Blacks were still mostly agrarian, and before the great migration, when most gun crimes were committed by whites, and the Black inner-city crime rates were virtually non-existent, from the violent periods of western expansion and all the violence and lawlessness going on in those frontier towns, all the way to the days of inner-city European-based organized crime, the media didn't coin terms like White-ON-White or Euro on-Euro crime. Criminals were just that. Criminals. PERIOD. Whites didn't hold each other accountable for the evil deeds of the low-lifes and miscreants their own communities. They were just treated as criminals, and folks who fell through the cracks of society, all on their own.
Even as the Klan was formed, and Blacks were being harassed and lynched and houses bombed, the Klan was just seen as a group of terrorist on their own, and not seen as a larger problem brought on by white society and white supremacy. In other words, White criminality was just treated as the exception. As Blacks start fleeing the South, and start moving to Northern ghettos and slums, overcrowding happens, white flight happens, drugs and violence infiltrate the communities in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, now buzzwords all-of-a-sudden like Black-on-Black crime are coined.
All of a sudden crime is completely put within the contexts of race in this country, whereas 30, 40, 50,yrs earlier, those same criminal acts when committed by folks of a different hue , those criminal would have been just looked as criminal acts. The term Black-on-Black crime then drums up racial hysteria. Now things like drug-using, drug-dealing, youth gangs, and deliquency ae treated, seen, and presented as things solely culturally linked to the Black community, even though it was/is happening in every inner-city community, regardless of race.
Why should any Black person be held accountable or be put on trial for every wayward teen in their community, anymore than White suburban parents should be put on trial for Jared Loughtner or Adam Lanza. Why must Blacks always explain themselves, for what the wayward minority does? Because no matter how violent a city like Chicago is, there are still more Black kids who aren't killers than those who are killers.
I don't think crime should be racialized, but the facts are the facts. If we want to solve the murder and violent crime problem in the U.S., we need to focus on the low hanging fruit which is to say the groups (Black and Hispanic) that perpetrate a lot of the crime.
I say, we should stop treating certain groups with kid gloves. They were oppressed/discriminated/whatever in the past, so we owe them this huge debt and we have to be extra nice to them. Sorry but this approach hasn't worked.
The only thing that works is prompt, fair justice. Not police brutality, not wrongful arrests and trumped up charges, just catch the perps quickly, try them quickly, and have them do their time, and preferably on work gangs where it actually pays society back a little bit. It's brutal, but the things they did were brutal, and we need to protect the innocents of our society first.
The Israelis know that when someone shoots at them, the best response is to hit back hard and fast. Talk's cheap. Being nice doesn't work. Tough works. Tough is fair. Tough is the proven correct way to do things.
The liberals tried being nice and that was a flat-out disaster. I remember reading a book I found in the college library in the '70s about crime and sociology. The sociologist said, "Crime is all our fault. We are just as guilty as the criminals. We created them. Blah blah blah." This kind of sick Orwellian doublethink permeated the whole society back in the 60s-70s, and the result was a massive and unrepentant crime wave.
It was only in the 80s that Americans came to their senses and started hitting back, with smarter police work and more prisons and tougher judges, and the situation was brought back under control (along with the Boomers growing older, and other socioeconomic changes).
Right, and our black president doesn't care either. He will get up and defend the honor of Trayvon Martin (I am not defending Zimmerman here, he should be locked away) when it suits his political approval ratings, but say nothing about the young black men who are shooting one another in record numbers in his former favorite city of Chicago.
I certainly don't want to see an entire race chastised for the actions of a few, but I also don't want to see excuses being made in the media or passes being given to one race and not another.
But that's the problem, that's exactly what happens when things like the "Knockout Game" are given vast amounts of media attention. It creates this hysteria, that will ultimately fall on guys like me, and guys in my age bracket. No matter how many mass shootings orchestrated by young White males occur, their mishaps are never gonna fall at the feet of middle-class White parents, the same way Black folks feet are going to be held to the fire. Historically, this is what has been happening to Black people. 1 Negro messes up, every negro is held accountable. There's so much historical context behind how crimes are reported and by whom, and "what we need to do, to make sure they don't got start going after us". We can take it back to films like Birth Of A Nation. Are there any figures on how many White assaults have been attribute to the Knockout Game? I mean, if a Black kid does decide to attack a seemingly helpless White person, and that White person had a glock on him, and shot the Black kid to death, I wouldn't feel bad for the kid. I'd say, RIGHT ON WHITE MAN, DEFEND YOURSELF. The kid had it coming. I'm not against White people defending themselves from wayward Black children, I'm only against the mass hysteria it may cause towards Black kids, and the collateral that will fall upon the innocent Black kids. Because, if we're being honest, this country has a history of promoting Anti-Black Hysteria.
I don't think crime should be racialized, but the facts are the facts. If we want to solve the murder and violent crime problem in the U.S., we need to focus on the low hanging fruit which is to say the groups (Black and Hispanic) that perpetrate a lot of the crime.
I say, we should stop treating certain groups with kid gloves. They were oppressed/discriminated/whatever in the past, so we owe them this huge debt and we have to be extra nice to them. Sorry but this approach hasn't worked.
The only thing that works is prompt, fair justice. Not police brutality, not wrongful arrests and trumped up charges, just catch the perps quickly, try them quickly, and have them do their time, and preferably on work gangs where it actually pays society back a little bit. It's brutal, but the things they did were brutal, and we need to protect the innocents of our society first.
The Israelis know that when someone shoots at them, the best response is to hit back hard and fast. Talk's cheap. Being nice doesn't work. Tough works. Tough is fair. Tough is the proven correct way to do things.
The liberals tried being nice and that was a flat-out disaster. I remember reading a book I found in the college library in the '70s about crime and sociology. The sociologist said, "Crime is all our fault. We are just as guilty as the criminals. We created them. Blah blah blah." This kind of sick Orwellian doublethink permeated the whole society back in the 60s-70s, and the result was a massive and unrepentant crime wave.
It was only in the 80s that Americans came to their senses and started hitting back, with smarter police work and more prisons and tougher judges, and the situation was brought back under control (along with the Boomers growing older, and other socioeconomic changes).
Just my 2c
Are you sure that type of policing worked in the 80's?The 80's and the earlier half of the 90's saw some of our worse murder rates. But even then, the drug laws that were enacted in the 80's seemed somewhat unfair. All it did was fill prisons up with non-violent offenders. Street crack deelers getting 20yrs. while the folsk who import the stuff by plane get easier senteces. How does putting more and more non-violent offenders in prison help? Those CRASH type LAPD inspired street sweeps helped and hurt. I'm not saying everything you said is incorrect, but that style of policing produces so much collateral, in which small-time offenders and even non-criminals alike are swept up just for being outside of their homes during a certain time of night. Who'd want to live in a communist-like structure like that? That style of policing helps and hurts. Because often times, you may catch the big dogs, the meoghborhood kingpins, and the killers, but then you get the small fish, the non-violent offenders, and the non-criminal late-night cruisers involved in the mix. People who need not to have a criminal records, now have marks against them, for essentially being out late in their own community, and the person standing next to them just happened to be a gang-member. Some of these gang injunctions seem so UN-american. We're talking groups of men that can't even go to the public park and play dominoes without police harassment and showing ID's.
I don't think crime should be racialized, but the facts are the facts. If we want to solve the murder and violent crime problem in the U.S., we need to focus on the low hanging fruit which is to say the groups (Black and Hispanic) that perpetrate a lot of the crime.
I say, we should stop treating certain groups with kid gloves. They were oppressed/discriminated/whatever in the past, so we owe them this huge debt and we have to be extra nice to them. Sorry but this approach hasn't worked.
The only thing that works is prompt, fair justice. Not police brutality, not wrongful arrests and trumped up charges, just catch the perps quickly, try them quickly, and have them do their time, and preferably on work gangs where it actually pays society back a little bit. It's brutal, but the things they did were brutal, and we need to protect the innocents of our society first.
The Israelis know that when someone shoots at them, the best response is to hit back hard and fast. Talk's cheap. Being nice doesn't work. Tough works. Tough is fair. Tough is the proven correct way to do things.
The liberals tried being nice and that was a flat-out disaster. I remember reading a book I found in the college library in the '70s about crime and sociology. The sociologist said, "Crime is all our fault. We are just as guilty as the criminals. We created them. Blah blah blah." This kind of sick Orwellian doublethink permeated the whole society back in the 60s-70s, and the result was a massive and unrepentant crime wave.
It was only in the 80s that Americans came to their senses and started hitting back, with smarter police work and more prisons and tougher judges, and the situation was brought back under control (along with the Boomers growing older, and other socioeconomic changes).
Just my 2c
Are you sure that type of policing worked in the 80's?The 80's and the earlier half of the 90's saw some of our worse murder rates. But even then, the drug laws that were enacted in the 80's seemed somewhat unfair. All it did was fill prisons up with non-violent offenders. Street crack deelers getting 20yrs. while the folks who import the stuff by plane get easier sentences. How does putting more and more non-violent offenders in prison help? Those CRASH type LAPD inspired street sweeps helped and hurt the communities. I'm not saying everything you said is incorrect, but that style of policing produces so much collateral, in which small-time offenders and even non-criminals alike are swept up just for being outside of their homes during a certain time of night. Who'd want to live in a communist-like structure like that? That style of policing helps and hurts. Because often times, you may catch the big dogs, the neighborhood kingpins, and the killers, but then you get the small fish, the non-violent offenders, and the non-criminal late-night cruisers involved in the mix. People who need not to have a criminal records, now have marks against them, for essentially being out late in their own community, and the person standing next to them just happened to be a gang-member. Some of these gang injunctions seem so UN-American. We're talking groups of men that can't even go to the public park and play dominoes without police harassment and showing ID's. From LA to cities like NYC where they have stop-and-frisk policies. So many non-criminals get swept up in that mess. What if that style of policing came to more conservative areas? You wouldn't hear the end of it. Stalin Obama, and his Marxist goons are trying to control our everyday lives.
Are you sure that type of policing worked in the 80's?The 80's and the earlier half of the 90's saw some of our worse murder rates. But even then, the drug laws that were enacted in the 80's seemed somewhat unfair. All it did was fill prisons up with non-violent offenders. Street crack deelers getting 20yrs. while the folks who import the stuff by plane get easier sentences. How does putting more and more non-violent offenders in prison help? Those CRASH type LAPD inspired street sweeps helped and hurt the communities. I'm not saying everything you said is incorrect, but that style of policing produces so much collateral, in which small-time offenders and even non-criminals alike are swept up just for being outside of their homes during a certain time of night. Who'd want to live in a communist-like structure like that? That style of policing helps and hurts. Because often times, you may catch the big dogs, the neighborhood kingpins, and the killers, but then you get the small fish, the non-violent offenders, and the non-criminal late-night cruisers involved in the mix. People who need not to have a criminal records, now have marks against them, for essentially being out late in their own community, and the person standing next to them just happened to be a gang-member. Some of these gang injunctions seem so UN-American. We're talking groups of men that can't even go to the public park and play dominoes without police harassment and showing ID's. From LA to cities like NYC where they have stop-and-frisk policies. So many non-criminals get swept up in that mess. What if that style of policing came to more conservative areas? You wouldn't hear the end of it. Stalin Obama, and his Marxist goons are trying to control our everyday lives.
(I'm answering your second post because it looks like a double posting; you might wanna remove the previous one)
I agree with you that the war on drugs has been a major fail. It's distracted police from the work of protecting the community, it's put non-violent felons behind bars for many years, and turned some of them into violent felons. The ONLY good thing about the drug laws is that it enables cops to arrest bad violent guys just on possession, to get them off the streets even if you don't agree with anti-drug arrests. But it would be better to not have that as a law at all because the negatives are much greater than the positives.
That said, if I caught some neighborhood teenager pushing heroin on my 9-year-old, I'd want him put away for a long time (what I'd really want to do to him, I'd rather not say). Pushing drugs on minors should continue to be a crime, just like child porn and other stuff.
Stop-and-frisk is a pragmatic but probably illegal practice. I understand why they do it, and I understand why civil rights supporters are so up in arms about it. I guess I'm on the fence about it.
(I'm answering your second post because it looks like a double posting; you might wanna remove the previous one)
I agree with you that the war on drugs has been a major fail. It's distracted police from the work of protecting the community, it's put non-violent felons behind bars for many years, and turned some of them into violent felons. The ONLY good thing about the drug laws is that it enables cops to arrest bad violent guys just on possession, to get them off the streets even if you don't agree with anti-drug arrests. But it would be better to not have that as a law at all because the negatives are much greater than the positives.
That said, if I caught some neighborhood teenager pushing heroin on my 9-year-old, I'd want him put away for a long time (what I'd really want to do to him, I'd rather not say). Pushing drugs on minors should continue to be a crime, just like child porn and other stuff.
Stop-and-frisk is a pragmatic but probably illegal practice. I understand why they do it, and I understand why civil rights supporters are so up in arms about it. I guess I'm on the fence about it.
Yeah, I accidentally double-posted. But I agree, Pushing drugs on kids is horrible. But those sentences didn't really help much, because they weren't tackling the root of the problem, the root being, major drug traffickers, and pure cocaine users and drug-runners importing the drugs, getting lesser sentencing then crack users and crack dealers. Basically the fate of your entire life was based on whether you sold and or used powder cocaine vs smoking/selling rock cocaine. Everyone wasn't being punished fairly across the bored. And the urban black male became the face of drug distribution, even though the sell, use, and distribution of cocaine had been going on for decades before by wealthy Whites/Colombians/Cubans whoever, who owned cargo planes. Before powder cocaine became rock cocaine, it was being primarily used by the wealthy and upper-class. With the introduction of crack, the image changed overnight. And it all fell at the knees of the Black community. We can get into the ties to the Contra affair, and all of that. It's a whole pandoras box of issues that happened in the 80's involving the CIA and drug-distribution through-out America, and the building private prisons popping up all over the US. Some are conspiracy theories, while others have some legitimacy to them.
But that's the problem, that's exactly what happens when things like the "Knockout Game" are given vast amounts of media attention. It creates this hysteria, that will ultimately fall on guys like me, and guys in my age bracket. No matter how many mass shootings orchestrated by young White males occur, their mishaps are never gonna fall at the feet of middle-class White parents, the same way Black folks feet are going to be held to the fire. Historically, this is what has been happening to Black people. 1 Negro messes up, every negro is held accountable. There's so much historical context behind how crimes are reported and by whom, and "what we need to do, to make sure they don't got start going after us". We can take it back to films like Birth Of A Nation. Are there any figures on how many White assaults have been attribute to the Knockout Game? I mean, if a Black kid does decide to attack a seemingly helpless White person, and that White person had a glock on him, and shot the Black kid to death, I wouldn't feel bad for the kid. I'd say, RIGHT ON WHITE MAN, DEFEND YOURSELF. The kid had it coming. I'm not against White people defending themselves from wayward Black children, I'm only against the mass hysteria it may cause towards Black kids, and the collateral that will fall upon the innocent Black kids. Because, if we're being honest, this country has a history of promoting Anti-Black Hysteria.
I wouldn't call it hysteria, it's awareness. We live in an age where addressing anything race related when it comes to minorities is taboo. Politicians want easy targets for pandering to voters and the media latches on to stories they know will grab not only attention and ratings but emotions. The knockout game has been played on the streets for over two decades now, but it wasn't until a specific religious group has been targeted that we are seeing some media coverage. There is nothing wrong with informing the public of potential dangers they may face on the streets. There have been dozens of attacks caught on video and they warrant the public's awareness.
I agreethat we should not base all the crimes of a certain race on all of it citizens but when one sees a large group of black youth damaging a mall or convenience store or vehicles on a public street you kind of get where people are coming from whe n they blaim all black people...
Or when u look at the former mayor of DC who is black and was not worth a s**t and what he was doing.. Or the mayor of new orleans who was basically the same way. Now you have people seeing adult blacks and they are forming their opinions about the entire race again.
This is where u get the mindset of blaiming an entire race for something
I'm so glad it's a myth. Didn't want to believe all those security camera footage and victim medical reports.(sarcasm) who you gonna believe, the police statement or your own eyes?
This. It is so mythical that you used to be able to find footage on Youtube randomly while doing searches that had nothing to do with it.
This "police report," if real, just shows that we are living in Orwellian times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
