Blacks: Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

[mudwhistle]

Actually blacks are 7 time more likely to be victims than Whites, which means they are involved in more violent acts or guilty of more. Both are true.

Did you miss the part about cops framing blacks....or did your eyes automatically skip that part because they are programmed to do so?

I read it.

I've discovered that the less you break the law the less times you are confronted with this type of situation.
Maybe also not mouthing off to every pig that pulls you over is a good rule of thumb. Blacks have a tendency to show a lack of respect for authority.

If your skin is Black you don't have to break the law ti get pulled over. And when that happens, I can understand the indignation of being harrassed for no good reasin can generate disrespect. towards cops. But it's not against the law ro mouth off to a cop. I've seen White youth do it too...with fewer or no consequences. But if avblack person does it the all encompassing charge of "disorderly conduct" is brought forth ..or worse..a beatdown or.murder is commited by the cop just because he got his feelings hurt.

I think if blacks want to stop being pulled over maybe they should stop breaking the motherfucking law all of the time.

Did you miss this:

"If your skin is Black you don't have to break the law to get pulled over."

Yep......and the same goes for everyone.
The point I've been trying to get across to your dumb ass is that once you get pulled over by a cop, if you exhibit an attitude you're going to only get in worse trouble.
That goes for everyone regardless of race.

 

[abu afak]

And why would I waste my time researching that for you? You wouldn't appreciate it.

You wouldn't "waste your time" because you'd be proving the Premise of your own string Wrong.

Your a Despicable Apologist and Dishhonest "Clocksetter."

47% of the exonerations..... 52+% of the Murders.

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[.....]
Homicide
According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for Blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites (per 100,000), and the victim rate 6 times higher (per 100,000).
Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.[33][34][35]
[.....]
Robbery
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2002, the black arrest rate for robbery was 8.55 times Higher than whites, and blacks were 16 times more likely to be incarcerated for robbery than non-Hispanic whites.
Robberies with White victims and Black offenders were more than 12 Times more common than the reverse.[38][39]​

`

 

[JQPublic1]

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

For the entire time you had a way to validate your hypothesis. Conducting sound original research was your way to validate your hypothesis. For whatever reason(s), you chose not to purse the means you have/had available, choosing concurrently to await someone else's serendipitously validating your hypothesis.

I did conduct sound original research. Along the way I discovered how race based statistics are generated and compiled. I know that most law rnforcement agencies do the reporting, and that one suspect can have multiple charges launched against hiim; thereby making one individual appear in the UCR as multiple individuals.. Now...the study I have just entered serves as professional prima facie evidence to not only support my lay research, it goes further in uncovering the biased apparatus within the justice system that reflects the disdain of the dominant society for it's black citizens.

Your flowery jargon needs some work, chum. You ought to study proper diction before engaging in lexical fisticuffs with me.

I did conduct sound original research.

Well by all means, point me to your findings. I look forward to reading your paper/book.

I pointed you to my posts and you mishandled them. Now I am wary of you. Are you friend or foe?

???

Why are you perplexed? You wanted me to point you to my findings and my posts do just that!

 

[JQPublic1]

Did you miss the part about cops framing blacks....or did your eyes automatically skip that part because they are programmed to do so?

I read it.

I've discovered that the less you break the law the less times you are confronted with this type of situation.
Maybe also not mouthing off to every pig that pulls you over is a good rule of thumb. Blacks have a tendency to show a lack of respect for authority.

If your skin is Black you don't have to break the law ti get pulled over. And when that happens, I can understand the indignation of being harrassed for no good reasin can generate disrespect. towards cops. But it's not against the law ro mouth off to a cop. I've seen White youth do it too...with fewer or no consequences. But if avblack person does it the all encompassing charge of "disorderly conduct" is brought forth ..or worse..a beatdown or.murder is commited by the cop just because he got his feelings hurt.

I think if blacks want to stop being pulled over maybe they should stop breaking the motherfucking law all of the time.

Did you miss this:

"If your skin is Black you don't have to break the law to get pulled over."

Yep......and the same goes for everyone.
The point I've been trying to get across to your dumb ass is that once you get pulled over by a cop, if you exhibit an attitude you're going to only get in worse trouble.
That goes for everyone regardless of race.

You are either sincerely ignorant or conscientiously stupid. Everyone has heard of the Driving While Black syndrome. You suggested Blacks should stop breaking the law all the time if they didn't want to get pulled over. Often, they aren't breaking the law when they get pulled over. So, if some corrupt cop wants to have fun, he escalates the situation , plants drugs on the victim, and BAM, he's disenfranchised another democrat voter.

 

[usmbguest5318]

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

For the entire time you had a way to validate your hypothesis. Conducting sound original research was your way to validate your hypothesis. For whatever reason(s), you chose not to purse the means you have/had available, choosing concurrently to await someone else's serendipitously validating your hypothesis.

I did conduct sound original research. Along the way I discovered how race based statistics are generated and compiled. I know that most law rnforcement agencies do the reporting, and that one suspect can have multiple charges launched against hiim; thereby making one individual appear in the UCR as multiple individuals.. Now...the study I have just entered serves as professional prima facie evidence to not only support my lay research, it goes further in uncovering the biased apparatus within the justice system that reflects the disdain of the dominant society for it's black citizens.

Your flowery jargon needs some work, chum. You ought to study proper diction before engaging in lexical fisticuffs with me.

I did conduct sound original research.

Well by all means, point me to your findings. I look forward to reading your paper/book.

I pointed you to my posts and you mishandled them. Now I am wary of you. Are you friend or foe?

???

Why are you perplexed? You wanted me to point you to my findings and my posts do just that!

• I see no links to your posts.
• I see no post numbers and thread identifiers.
• I see no paper or book titles.

All I see is:

• Your claim that you did "conduct sound original research."
• Your claim that you pointed me to your sound original research.

Truly, I'm not convinced you have any idea of what sound original research documentation entails. Let me explain to you what I expect to see in the documentation of your sound original research:

• The report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study, in this case, you.
• Description of your hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.
• Detailed explication of your methodologies -- data collection, data grouping, data analysis, etc. -- detailed enough that nobody will have any questions about how to replicate it.
• Exposition of the data and results of the data analysis you performed.
• Your interpretation of your findings and a discussion of (1) the inferential limitations of your findings, (2) why those limitations exist, and (3) the possible implications of your findings.

Now, you've said you performed sound original research and you've indicated that you've posted it on USMB, which odd as that is, fine. Where is it?

 

[Correll]

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

A year old study brings the statistical damage wrongly perpetrated upon the reputation of the black community clearly into focus. But the findings, evidently, didn't serve the needs of a biased media. Most, it seems, choose to ignore positive news coming out of the black areas. It is far more lucrative to find profit in the vested interest of keeping myths of blacks as the collective boogeyman alive.
Let the lesson begin.

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

"That’s the takeaway from a study for the National Registry of Exonerations, published on Tuesday. Researchers Samuel Gross, Maurice Possley, and Klara Stephens analyzed years of exoneration data, looking at how race may influence whether someone is wrongfully convicted — and later cleared — of a crime they didn’t commit."

Did i see someone recently post they are tired of reading about or hearing about black victimhood? Well if it's real, help the blacks to address those responsible for victimizing them instead of throwing skewed statistics in the face of blacks who are not and never have been criminals.

Hang on...here comes justification for my opposition to race based criminal statistics

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the

1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”

Who is missing the message here? Anyone? Given the above revelation, who can, if you are honest, look at race based crime statistics the same way they did prior to reading this exposé?

I'm hopeful the results of this study will help to offset some of the negative anti black stereotyping that

Has been gaining momentum everywhere in the last decade..i

Wait a minute. Are they comparing the blacks convicted to the population as a whole, or to the convicted murder population?


And what percentage of murderers are falsely convicted?

And what is the odds that a random black and white guy will be falsely convicted?


THis number, without context is meaningless.


If it is not just made up bullshit.

 

[JQPublic1]

And why would I waste my time researching that for you? You wouldn't appreciate it.

You wouldn't "waste your time" because you'd be proving the Premise of your own string Wrong.

Your a Despicable Apologist and Dishhonest "Clocksetter."

47% of the exonerations..... 52+% of the Murders.

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[.....]
Homicide
According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for Blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites (per 100,000), and the victim rate 6 times higher (per 100,000).
Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.[33][34][35]
[.....]
Robbery
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2002, the black arrest rate for robbery was 8.55 times Higher than whites, and blacks were 16 times more likely to be incarcerated for robbery than non-Hispanic whites.
Robberies with White victims and Black offenders were more than 12 Times more common than the reverse.[38][39]​

`

Thanks for rehashing the arrests shown in table 21A of the 2016 UCR. That's what the 52.5% represents...arrests not convictions. NOW go to Table 2 showing the offenders ( The term offenders is used instead of arrestees in table 2 but no explanation or footnotes explain the difference)
There you will find a different set of percentages showing African Americans were 35.9% of the offenders for murder and Whites were 29.5% of offenders,
My observance: The arrests rate for murder ( table 21A) for Blacks was 52.5% of the total but the offender rate was only 35.9% (table 2A) what does that tell you? Also note that the murder arrest rate for Whites was 44.7% of the total but the offender rate for whites was 29.5.
I'm not sure but it appears to me that 16% of Black arrestees were cleared and 15.2% of White suspects were cleared. That is one logical reason for the disparity...there may be others.

Now, looking at the arrests for violent crimes category in table 21A, White criminals commit more violent crimes than Black criminals

in raw numbers

 

[JQPublic1]

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

For the entire time you had a way to validate your hypothesis. Conducting sound original research was your way to validate your hypothesis. For whatever reason(s), you chose not to purse the means you have/had available, choosing concurrently to await someone else's serendipitously validating your hypothesis.

I did conduct sound original research. Along the way I discovered how race based statistics are generated and compiled. I know that most law rnforcement agencies do the reporting, and that one suspect can have multiple charges launched against hiim; thereby making one individual appear in the UCR as multiple individuals.. Now...the study I have just entered serves as professional prima facie evidence to not only support my lay research, it goes further in uncovering the biased apparatus within the justice system that reflects the disdain of the dominant society for it's black citizens.

Your flowery jargon needs some work, chum. You ought to study proper diction before engaging in lexical fisticuffs with me.

I did conduct sound original research.

Well by all means, point me to your findings. I look forward to reading your paper/book.

I pointed you to my posts and you mishandled them. Now I am wary of you. Are you friend or foe?

???

Why are you perplexed? You wanted me to point you to my findings and my posts do just that!

• I see no links to your posts.
• I see no post numbers and thread identifiers.
• I see no paper or book titles.

All I see is:

• Your claim that you did "conduct sound original research."
• Your claim that you pointed me to your sound original research.

Truly, I'm not convinced you have any idea of what sound original research documentation entails. Let me explain to you what I expect to see in the documentation of your sound original research:

• The report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study, in this case, you.
• Description of your hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.
• Detailed explication of your methodologies -- data collection, data grouping, data analysis, etc. -- detailed enough that nobody will have any questions about how to replicate it.
• Exposition of the data and results of the data analysis you performed.
• Your interpretation of your findings and a discussion of (1) the inferential limitations of your findings, (2) why those limitations exist, and (3) the possible implications of your findings.

Now, you've said you performed sound original research and you've indicated that you've posted it on USMB, which odd as that is, fine. Where is it?

\
Mail e a check for $50,000 dollars and I'll send it right to ya. You don't expect me do do all that work for free do ya? Heh heh heh!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

A year old study brings the statistical damage wrongly perpetrated upon the reputation of the black community clearly into focus. But the findings, evidently, didn't serve the needs of a biased media. Most, it seems, choose to ignore positive news coming out of the black areas. It is far more lucrative to find profit in the vested interest of keeping myths of blacks as the collective boogeyman alive.
Let the lesson begin.

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

"That’s the takeaway from a study for the National Registry of Exonerations, published on Tuesday. Researchers Samuel Gross, Maurice Possley, and Klara Stephens analyzed years of exoneration data, looking at how race may influence whether someone is wrongfully convicted — and later cleared — of a crime they didn’t commit."

Did i see someone recently post they are tired of reading about or hearing about black victimhood? Well if it's real, help the blacks to address those responsible for victimizing them instead of throwing skewed statistics in the face of blacks who are not and never have been criminals.

Hang on...here comes justification for my opposition to race based criminal statistics

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the

1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”

Who is missing the message here? Anyone? Given the above revelation, who can, if you are honest, look at race based crime statistics the same way they did prior to reading this exposé?

I'm hopeful the results of this study will help to offset some of the negative anti black stereotyping that

Has been gaining momentum everywhere in the last decade..i

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

If you get a chance, show how he came up with the 7 times figure.
I read the link and he doesn't show the math.

Thanks!

And why would I waste my time researching that for you? You wouldn't appreciate it.

If it takes a lot of research to find their methodology or to confirm their calculation, that tells you something.
Don't worry, I don't care if you can't back up their claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

I'd have to be a dumb, racist ape to buy your shit.

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations"

In regards to murder, blacks commit over 47% of the murders, so all other things being equal, blacks are actually less likely to be wrongly convicted.

Black crimes are more random (less justified) than white crimes, making it more likely an innocent black will be accused of a crime another black. That's not a problem with whites being racist, that's a problem with dumb apes being so prone to crime.

Another point, without a doubt, blacks get wrongly exonerated more easily just by crying racism, something whites can't do. Enjoy your black privilege. Dumb, racist, violent apes...

In regards to murder, blacks commit over 47% of the murders, so all other things being equal, blacks are actually less likely to be wrongly convicted.

I tried to tell him that before........

And you are just as stupid now as you were before! The UCR shows arrests not convictions.
So you have no idea how many Blacks were convicted of those arrests. That shuts your premise down completely.

The UCR shows arrests not convictions.

Different pages show different things.
The one I provided doesn't say arrested or convicted, it says offender.

 

[AKIP]

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

A year old study brings the statistical damage wrongly perpetrated upon the reputation of the black community clearly into focus. But the findings, evidently, didn't serve the needs of a biased media. Most, it seems, choose to ignore positive news coming out of the black areas. It is far more lucrative to find profit in the vested interest of keeping myths of blacks as the collective boogeyman alive.
Let the lesson begin.

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

"That’s the takeaway from a study for the National Registry of Exonerations, published on Tuesday. Researchers Samuel Gross, Maurice Possley, and Klara Stephens analyzed years of exoneration data, looking at how race may influence whether someone is wrongfully convicted — and later cleared — of a crime they didn’t commit."

Did i see someone recently post they are tired of reading about or hearing about black victimhood? Well if it's real, help the blacks to address those responsible for victimizing them instead of throwing skewed statistics in the face of blacks who are not and never have been criminals.

Hang on...here comes justification for my opposition to race based criminal statistics

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the

1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”

Who is missing the message here? Anyone? Given the above revelation, who can, if you are honest, look at race based crime statistics the same way they did prior to reading this exposé?

I'm hopeful the results of this study will help to offset some of the negative anti black stereotyping that

Has been gaining momentum everywhere in the last decade..i

Wait a minute. Are they comparing the blacks convicted to the population as a whole, or to the convicted murder population?


And what percentage of murderers are falsely convicted?

And what is the odds that a random black and white guy will be falsely convicted?


THis number, without context is meaningless.


If it is not just made up bullshit.

It seems to me when we are talking violent crime rate among blacks and juxtaposing it with whites, the only thing that seems to matter to many whites is that the rate is much higher for blacks than whites. No one is asking what percentage of the black population commits a violent crime....like you have asked about what percentage of people are falsely convicted. It does not matter that only a small percentage of blacks commit murder.....something like...0.004. The black population gets labeled as violent in general based upon the behavior of 0.004 of blacks.

Kind of a double standard there in what you are asking.

 

[JQPublic1]

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

A year old study brings the statistical damage wrongly perpetrated upon the reputation of the black community clearly into focus. But the findings, evidently, didn't serve the needs of a biased media. Most, it seems, choose to ignore positive news coming out of the black areas. It is far more lucrative to find profit in the vested interest of keeping myths of blacks as the collective boogeyman alive.
Let the lesson begin.

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

"That’s the takeaway from a study for the National Registry of Exonerations, published on Tuesday. Researchers Samuel Gross, Maurice Possley, and Klara Stephens analyzed years of exoneration data, looking at how race may influence whether someone is wrongfully convicted — and later cleared — of a crime they didn’t commit."

Did i see someone recently post they are tired of reading about or hearing about black victimhood? Well if it's real, help the blacks to address those responsible for victimizing them instead of throwing skewed statistics in the face of blacks who are not and never have been criminals.

Hang on...here comes justification for my opposition to race based criminal statistics

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the

1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”

Who is missing the message here? Anyone? Given the above revelation, who can, if you are honest, look at race based crime statistics the same way they did prior to reading this exposé?

I'm hopeful the results of this study will help to offset some of the negative anti black stereotyping that

Has been gaining momentum everywhere in the last decade..i

Wait a minute. Are they comparing the blacks convicted to the population as a whole, or to the convicted murder population?


And what percentage of murderers are falsely convicted?

And what is the odds that a random black and white guy will be falsely convicted?


THis number, without context is meaningless.


If it is not just made up bullshit.

Can't you read or are you as myopic as your USMB buddies? The total number of people exonerated over a period of years is the number being analyzed; but, using proportional statistics and comparing each racial groups exonerations against their representation in the general populace is what all the fuss is about. But the total of exonerations is just a benchmark that may be just scratching the surface. The potential for thousands more wrongful convictions looms..

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

A year old study brings the statistical damage wrongly perpetrated upon the reputation of the black community clearly into focus. But the findings, evidently, didn't serve the needs of a biased media. Most, it seems, choose to ignore positive news coming out of the black areas. It is far more lucrative to find profit in the vested interest of keeping myths of blacks as the collective boogeyman alive.
Let the lesson begin.

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

"That’s the takeaway from a study for the National Registry of Exonerations, published on Tuesday. Researchers Samuel Gross, Maurice Possley, and Klara Stephens analyzed years of exoneration data, looking at how race may influence whether someone is wrongfully convicted — and later cleared — of a crime they didn’t commit."

Did i see someone recently post they are tired of reading about or hearing about black victimhood? Well if it's real, help the blacks to address those responsible for victimizing them instead of throwing skewed statistics in the face of blacks who are not and never have been criminals.

Hang on...here comes justification for my opposition to race based criminal statistics

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the

1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”

Who is missing the message here? Anyone? Given the above revelation, who can, if you are honest, look at race based crime statistics the same way they did prior to reading this exposé?

I'm hopeful the results of this study will help to offset some of the negative anti black stereotyping that

Has been gaining momentum everywhere in the last decade..i

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

If you get a chance, show how he came up with the 7 times figure.
I read the link and he doesn't show the math.

Thanks!

And why would I waste my time researching that for you? You wouldn't appreciate it.

If it takes a lot of research to find their methodology or to confirm their calculation, that tells you something.
Don't worry, I don't care if you can't back up their claim.

And I don't care that you can't disprove their claim!

 

[JQPublic1]

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

I'd have to be a dumb, racist ape to buy your shit.

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations"

In regards to murder, blacks commit over 47% of the murders, so all other things being equal, blacks are actually less likely to be wrongly convicted.

Black crimes are more random (less justified) than white crimes, making it more likely an innocent black will be accused of a crime another black. That's not a problem with whites being racist, that's a problem with dumb apes being so prone to crime.

Another point, without a doubt, blacks get wrongly exonerated more easily just by crying racism, something whites can't do. Enjoy your black privilege. Dumb, racist, violent apes...

In regards to murder, blacks commit over 47% of the murders, so all other things being equal, blacks are actually less likely to be wrongly convicted.

I tried to tell him that before........

And you are just as stupid now as you were before! The UCR shows arrests not convictions.
So you have no idea how many Blacks were convicted of those arrests. That shuts your premise down completely.

The UCR shows arrests not convictions.

Different pages show different things.
The one I provided doesn't say arrested or convicted, it says offender.

You provided expanded homicide data in table 2A which also says the offender murder rate for Blacks was 35.9% not 52.6% as you said. I told you you didn't even understand what was right in front of you, dummy.

 

[Correll]

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

A year old study brings the statistical damage wrongly perpetrated upon the reputation of the black community clearly into focus. But the findings, evidently, didn't serve the needs of a biased media. Most, it seems, choose to ignore positive news coming out of the black areas. It is far more lucrative to find profit in the vested interest of keeping myths of blacks as the collective boogeyman alive.
Let the lesson begin.

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

"That’s the takeaway from a study for the National Registry of Exonerations, published on Tuesday. Researchers Samuel Gross, Maurice Possley, and Klara Stephens analyzed years of exoneration data, looking at how race may influence whether someone is wrongfully convicted — and later cleared — of a crime they didn’t commit."

Did i see someone recently post they are tired of reading about or hearing about black victimhood? Well if it's real, help the blacks to address those responsible for victimizing them instead of throwing skewed statistics in the face of blacks who are not and never have been criminals.

Hang on...here comes justification for my opposition to race based criminal statistics

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the

1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”

Who is missing the message here? Anyone? Given the above revelation, who can, if you are honest, look at race based crime statistics the same way they did prior to reading this exposé?

I'm hopeful the results of this study will help to offset some of the negative anti black stereotyping that

Has been gaining momentum everywhere in the last decade..i

Wait a minute. Are they comparing the blacks convicted to the population as a whole, or to the convicted murder population?


And what percentage of murderers are falsely convicted?

And what is the odds that a random black and white guy will be falsely convicted?


THis number, without context is meaningless.


If it is not just made up bullshit.

It seems to me when we are talking violent crime rate among blacks and juxtaposing it with whites, the only thing that seems to matter to many whites is that the rate is much higher for blacks than whites. No one is asking what percentage of the black population commits a violent crime....like you have asked about what percentage of people are falsely convicted. It does not matter that only a small percentage of blacks commit murder.....something like...0.004. The black population gets labeled as violent in general based upon the behavior of 0.004 of blacks.

Kind of a double standard there in what you are asking.

I'm not the one that started this thread.


I certainly see how the way our current public debate is stalled, could lead to negative images of the black community.


The only possible resolution of that, imo, is to stop talking shit about the problems and to address the causes.


ONce the conversation moves to addressing the causes, especially as the problems are no limited TO the black community and addressing them will benefit other segments of the nation also AND, the nation as a whole.


the constant discussion of the high rate of violent crime will die down, to an easily ignored fraction.



Of course, that won't happen, because it would require facing some hard truths and doing some hard things.

 

[Correll]

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

A year old study brings the statistical damage wrongly perpetrated upon the reputation of the black community clearly into focus. But the findings, evidently, didn't serve the needs of a biased media. Most, it seems, choose to ignore positive news coming out of the black areas. It is far more lucrative to find profit in the vested interest of keeping myths of blacks as the collective boogeyman alive.
Let the lesson begin.

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

"That’s the takeaway from a study for the National Registry of Exonerations, published on Tuesday. Researchers Samuel Gross, Maurice Possley, and Klara Stephens analyzed years of exoneration data, looking at how race may influence whether someone is wrongfully convicted — and later cleared — of a crime they didn’t commit."

Did i see someone recently post they are tired of reading about or hearing about black victimhood? Well if it's real, help the blacks to address those responsible for victimizing them instead of throwing skewed statistics in the face of blacks who are not and never have been criminals.

Hang on...here comes justification for my opposition to race based criminal statistics

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the

1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”

Who is missing the message here? Anyone? Given the above revelation, who can, if you are honest, look at race based crime statistics the same way they did prior to reading this exposé?

I'm hopeful the results of this study will help to offset some of the negative anti black stereotyping that

Has been gaining momentum everywhere in the last decade..i

Wait a minute. Are they comparing the blacks convicted to the population as a whole, or to the convicted murder population?


And what percentage of murderers are falsely convicted?

And what is the odds that a random black and white guy will be falsely convicted?


THis number, without context is meaningless.


If it is not just made up bullshit.

Can't you read or are you as myopic as your USMB buddies? The total number of people exonerated over a period of years is the number being analyzed; but, using proportional statistics and comparing each racial groups exonerations against their representation in the general populace is what all the fuss is about. But the total of exonerations is just a benchmark that may be just scratching the surface. The potential for thousands more wrongful convictions looms..!

Then it is a meaningless number, pumped up to be misleading.


The only way to discuss this to be honest about what might be there would be to compare it to the proportion of convicted murderers, not the general population.



The difference in offending rate would obviously account for the vast majority of the difference.

 

[usmbguest5318]

For the entire time you had a way to validate your hypothesis. Conducting sound original research was your way to validate your hypothesis. For whatever reason(s), you chose not to purse the means you have/had available, choosing concurrently to await someone else's serendipitously validating your hypothesis.

I did conduct sound original research. Along the way I discovered how race based statistics are generated and compiled. I know that most law rnforcement agencies do the reporting, and that one suspect can have multiple charges launched against hiim; thereby making one individual appear in the UCR as multiple individuals.. Now...the study I have just entered serves as professional prima facie evidence to not only support my lay research, it goes further in uncovering the biased apparatus within the justice system that reflects the disdain of the dominant society for it's black citizens.

Your flowery jargon needs some work, chum. You ought to study proper diction before engaging in lexical fisticuffs with me.

I did conduct sound original research.

Well by all means, point me to your findings. I look forward to reading your paper/book.

I pointed you to my posts and you mishandled them. Now I am wary of you. Are you friend or foe?

???

Why are you perplexed? You wanted me to point you to my findings and my posts do just that!

• I see no links to your posts.
• I see no post numbers and thread identifiers.
• I see no paper or book titles.

All I see is:

• Your claim that you did "conduct sound original research."
• Your claim that you pointed me to your sound original research.

Truly, I'm not convinced you have any idea of what sound original research documentation entails. Let me explain to you what I expect to see in the documentation of your sound original research:

• The report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study, in this case, you.
• Description of your hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.
• Detailed explication of your methodologies -- data collection, data grouping, data analysis, etc. -- detailed enough that nobody will have any questions about how to replicate it.
• Exposition of the data and results of the data analysis you performed.
• Your interpretation of your findings and a discussion of (1) the inferential limitations of your findings, (2) why those limitations exist, and (3) the possible implications of your findings.

Now, you've said you performed sound original research and you've indicated that you've posted it on USMB, which odd as that is, fine. Where is it?

Mail e a check for $50,000 dollars and I'll send it right to ya. You don't expect me do do all that work for free do ya? Heh heh heh!

Frankly, no, but you're the one who attested to having done it -- "did" is the is the simple past tense of "do," which means that not only have you commenced the "sound original research" but also that you've completed it....

I did conduct sound original research.

...and posted it on USMB, and you'r the one who asserted that you'd pointed me to your posts where in your "sound original research" had been posted. Moreover, you averred so in spite of having stated in your OP that you "had no way of validating [your] suspicions," to which I remarked:

For the entire time you had a way to validate your hypothesis. Conducting sound original research was your way to validate your hypothesis. For whatever reason(s), you chose not to purse the means you have/had available, choosing concurrently to await someone else's serendipitously validating your hypothesis.

Well, dude, you either did or did not perform sound original research. I didn't ask you to perform sound original research, I asked you to point me to your findings therefrom. The only reason I asked for your findings is because you said you "did conduct sound original research."


Then there is the matter that you make claims about the UCR that don't at all strike me as accurate. To wit,
in post 47, you remarked upon the 2016 UCR Table 21A by saying, "looking at the arrests for violent crimes category in table 21A, White criminals commit more violent crimes than Black criminals." That is not at all what table 21A indicates. Table 21A indicates that of the arrests for the offenses included in table 21A, the largest share of arrests were of white persons. That assertion is very different from "white folks commit more crimes." Because of the presumption of innocence doctrine, an arrest for an offense does not equate to one's having committed that offense.

There is also the matter of your apparent illiteracy or something, something that I suspected might be extant when you indicated that you didn't understand what "conduct of events" means. At that point I wasn't keen to conclude you are in some measure illiterate or weak minded. Upon seeing you make this remark -- "The term offenders is used instead of arrestees in table 2 but no explanation or footnotes explain the difference." -- I realized you have to be one, the other, both, or something like them. In a criminal justice context, "offender" has only one meaning; it's not an arcane word nor is it a euphemism. It's safe for the FBI to assume that readers of the UCR know exactly what that meaning is, and that those who don't will avail themselves of a dictionary in order to find out.


Now why did I write the two preceding paragraphs? I did so to show (1) that your critical thinking and reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired, and (2) that given the inadequacy of your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, there's no way in hell you performed anything remotely resembling sound original research. What you did was look at some data and make of it whatever the f*ck crossed your mind to make of it. That's all you did. Period.

 

[BulletProof]

And why would I waste my time researching that for you? You wouldn't appreciate it.

Dumbshit, if you present a case, it's up to you to support it, not to cry that it would be a waste of time for you to back up your claims.

But, yes, it would be a racist of time for you because your claims are bullshit.

 

[JQPublic1]

For the entire time you had a way to validate your hypothesis. Conducting sound original research was your way to validate your hypothesis. For whatever reason(s), you chose not to purse the means you have/had available, choosing concurrently to await someone else's serendipitously validating your hypothesis.

I did conduct sound original research. Along the way I discovered how race based statistics are generated and compiled. I know that most law rnforcement agencies do the reporting, and that one suspect can have multiple charges launched against hiim; thereby making one individual appear in the UCR as multiple individuals.. Now...the study I have just entered serves as professional prima facie evidence to not only support my lay research, it goes further in uncovering the biased apparatus within the justice system that reflects the disdain of the dominant society for it's black citizens.

Your flowery jargon needs some work, chum. You ought to study proper diction before engaging in lexical fisticuffs with me.

I did conduct sound original research.

Well by all means, point me to your findings. I look forward to reading your paper/book.

I pointed you to my posts and you mishandled them. Now I am wary of you. Are you friend or foe?

???

Why are you perplexed? You wanted me to point you to my findings and my posts do just that!

• I see no links to your posts.
• I see no post numbers and thread identifiers.
• I see no paper or book titles.

All I see is:

• Your claim that you did "conduct sound original research."
• Your claim that you pointed me to your sound original research.

Truly, I'm not convinced you have any idea of what sound original research documentation entails. Let me explain to you what I expect to see in the documentation of your sound original research:

• The report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study, in this case, you.
• Description of your hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.
• Detailed explication of your methodologies -- data collection, data grouping, data analysis, etc. -- detailed enough that nobody will have any questions about how to replicate it.
• Exposition of the data and results of the data analysis you performed.
• Your interpretation of your findings and a discussion of (1) the inferential limitations of your findings, (2) why those limitations exist, and (3) the possible implications of your findings.

Now, you've said you performed sound original research and you've indicated that you've posted it on USMB, which odd as that is, fine. Where is it?

Mail e a check for $50,000 dollars and I'll send it right to ya. You don't expect me do do all that work for free do ya? Heh heh heh!

Frankly, no, but you're the one who attested to having done it -- "did" is the is the simple past tense of "do," which means that not only have you commenced the "sound original research" but also that you've completed it....

I did conduct sound original research.

...and posted it on USMB, and you'r the one who asserted that you'd pointed me to your posts where in your "sound original research" had been posted. Moreover, you averred so in spite of having stated in your OP that you "had no way of validating [your] suspicions," to which I remarked:

For the entire time you had a way to validate your hypothesis. Conducting sound original research was your way to validate your hypothesis. For whatever reason(s), you chose not to purse the means you have/had available, choosing concurrently to await someone else's serendipitously validating your hypothesis.

Well, dude, you either did or did not perform sound original research. I didn't ask you to perform sound original research, I asked you to point me to your findings therefrom. The only reason I asked for your findings is because you said you "did conduct sound original research."


Then there is the matter that you make claims about the UCR that don't at all strike me as accurate. To wit,
in post 47, you remarked upon the 2016 UCR Table 21A by saying, "looking at the arrests for violent crimes category in table 21A, White criminals commit more violent crimes than Black criminals." That is not at all what table 21A indicates. Table 21A indicates that of the arrests for the offenses included in table 21A, the largest share of arrests were of white persons. That assertion is very different from "white folks commit more crimes." Because of the presumption of innocence doctrine, an arrest for an offense does not equate to one's having committed that offense.

There is also the matter of your apparent illiteracy or something, something that I suspected might be extant when you indicated that you didn't understand what "conduct of events" means. At that point I wasn't keen to conclude you are in some measure illiterate or weak minded. Upon seeing you make this remark -- "The term offenders is used instead of arrestees in table 2 but no explanation or footnotes explain the difference." -- I realized you have to be one, the other, both, or something like them. In a criminal justice context, "offender" has only one meaning; it's not an arcane word nor is it a euphemism. It's safe for the FBI to assume that readers of the UCR know exactly what that meaning is, and that those who don't will avail themselves of a dictionary in order to find out.


Now why did I write the two preceding paragraphs? I did so to show (1) that your critical thinking and reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired, and (2) that given the inadequacy of your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, there's no way in hell you performed anything remotely resembling sound original research. What you did was look at some data and make of it whatever the f*ck crossed your mind to make of it. That's all you did. Period.

You are a BLOWHART using a lot of words and saying nothing. If something as trivial as my saying I did sound research on the issue at hand gets your panties in a bunch, you'd better take a double dose of blood pressure pills if you hang around here. BTW, I do remember saying "my LAY research." And the definition of sound research does not necessarily encompass all the citations, quotes and references you asked for, especially on a message board. But, for all you know, I could have authored a paper or book on the subject. That doesn't mean I would jeopardize my anonymity here on USMB just to impress YOU!

While I have been factual to the best of my ability, I don't get too serious about trivial stuff. This is a message board, not a Congressional hearing or a court room. We gather here to have a little fun and to express and/or defend our opinions. College dissertations or book length posts have no place here except as a links to validate a premise. I did that! However, you want me to go beyond the normal standards of message board posting and delve into the minds of the authors in the link I posted. In that regard you go to far. I gave you a link, It's up to YOU to rebut it if you think the data is incorrect. I don't work for you. Don't forget that!

As to the semantics swirling around the term offenders as used in the UCR, we know the term is used in normal conversation to identity people who are suspected of committing an offense. Arguably the word "suspect" is more appropriate before trial if crime is involved , yet, sometimes we label people as offenders who never have been convicted of a crime. Good lawyers keep offenders from being labeled offenders because they are never convicted. My dictionary does not even mention or even insinuate a nexus between the term offender and a court conviction. That omission may have been made on purpose so as to leave wiggle room for those identified as offenders by jury verdict but are wrongfully accused. Or, as you posit, undisputed guilt is implied. The word offender is not as strong as the word perpetrator nor is is it as weak as the term suspect in alleging culpability. However, I concede that after a court conviction the presumption of guilt is tacitly tied to the word offender whether he/she actually committed the offense or not... But that does not mean the use of the term in the UCR implies guilt via a court conviction. Logic would lead us to think so, but we may be surprised that the term could also describe those in pre trial custody awaiting prosecution. The only way to be sure is to solicit an answer from those who decided to use it as an identifier in that section of the UCR.

Here is what I found in that regard.

On the FBI UCR website this narrative clearly shows that law enforcement agencies use the term offenders euphemistically in referring to suspects, not convicts.Do you agree with the following:

 

[JQPublic1]

And why would I waste my time researching that for you? You wouldn't appreciate it.

Dumbshit, if you present a case, it's up to you to support it, not to cry that it would be a waste of time for you to back up your claims.

But, yes, it would be a racist of time for you because your claims are bullshit.

Get lost Creep!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

A year old study brings the statistical damage wrongly perpetrated upon the reputation of the black community clearly into focus. But the findings, evidently, didn't serve the needs of a biased media. Most, it seems, choose to ignore positive news coming out of the black areas. It is far more lucrative to find profit in the vested interest of keeping myths of blacks as the collective boogeyman alive.
Let the lesson begin.

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

"That’s the takeaway from a study for the National Registry of Exonerations, published on Tuesday. Researchers Samuel Gross, Maurice Possley, and Klara Stephens analyzed years of exoneration data, looking at how race may influence whether someone is wrongfully convicted — and later cleared — of a crime they didn’t commit."

Did i see someone recently post they are tired of reading about or hearing about black victimhood? Well if it's real, help the blacks to address those responsible for victimizing them instead of throwing skewed statistics in the face of blacks who are not and never have been criminals.

Hang on...here comes justification for my opposition to race based criminal statistics

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the

1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”

Who is missing the message here? Anyone? Given the above revelation, who can, if you are honest, look at race based crime statistics the same way they did prior to reading this exposé?

I'm hopeful the results of this study will help to offset some of the negative anti black stereotyping that

Has been gaining momentum everywhere in the last decade..i

Wait a minute. Are they comparing the blacks convicted to the population as a whole, or to the convicted murder population?


And what percentage of murderers are falsely convicted?

And what is the odds that a random black and white guy will be falsely convicted?


THis number, without context is meaningless.


If it is not just made up bullshit.

Can't you read or are you as myopic as your USMB buddies? The total number of people exonerated over a period of years is the number being analyzed; but, using proportional statistics and comparing each racial groups exonerations against their representation in the general populace is what all the fuss is about. But the total of exonerations is just a benchmark that may be just scratching the surface. The potential for thousands more wrongful convictions looms..

For years I've suspected the arrestee data presented in the FBI UCR was purposely skewed against Blacks. But until now I had no way of validating my suspicions.

A year old study brings the statistical damage wrongly perpetrated upon the reputation of the black community clearly into focus. But the findings, evidently, didn't serve the needs of a biased media. Most, it seems, choose to ignore positive news coming out of the black areas. It is far more lucrative to find profit in the vested interest of keeping myths of blacks as the collective boogeyman alive.
Let the lesson begin.

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

"That’s the takeaway from a study for the National Registry of Exonerations, published on Tuesday. Researchers Samuel Gross, Maurice Possley, and Klara Stephens analyzed years of exoneration data, looking at how race may influence whether someone is wrongfully convicted — and later cleared — of a crime they didn’t commit."

Did i see someone recently post they are tired of reading about or hearing about black victimhood? Well if it's real, help the blacks to address those responsible for victimizing them instead of throwing skewed statistics in the face of blacks who are not and never have been criminals.

Hang on...here comes justification for my opposition to race based criminal statistics

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the

1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”

Who is missing the message here? Anyone? Given the above revelation, who can, if you are honest, look at race based crime statistics the same way they did prior to reading this exposé?

I'm hopeful the results of this study will help to offset some of the negative anti black stereotyping that

Has been gaining momentum everywhere in the last decade..i

Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder

If you get a chance, show how he came up with the 7 times figure.
I read the link and he doesn't show the math.

Thanks!

And why would I waste my time researching that for you? You wouldn't appreciate it.

If it takes a lot of research to find their methodology or to confirm their calculation, that tells you something.
Don't worry, I don't care if you can't back up their claim.

And I don't care that you can't disprove their claim!

The total number of people exonerated over a period of years is the number being analyzed; but, using proportional statistics and comparing each racial groups exonerations against their representation in the general populace is what all the fuss is about.

The exoneration rate compared to the general populace is irrelevant.
You have to compare it to the conviction rate.

If blacks are 60% of the convicted but 90% of the exonerated, that would hint that blacks are being railroaded.
But 7 times more likely convicted, 7 times more likely exonerated......not so much