[anigbrowl]

Statistically, you would expect more crime against white people since there are so many more of them. What matters is the probability that a person of a given ethnicity is likely to be a victim of8 violence at the hands of someone else, not the absolute number of such instances.

Suppose in a population of 100, there are 20 blue and 80 green people. Suppose that 10 blue people are the victim of green crime in a given year, while blue people commit 20 crimes against green people in the same period. So you could say that blue people commit twice as much crime as green people, which is true, but that leaves out the fact of the population disparity. If a blue person has a 50% chance of criminal insult from a green person, while a green person only has a 25% chance of experiencing that, then it's obviously better to be green than it is to be blue because you are only half as likely to become a victim of crime.

Unfortunately, people such as yourself often look at the absolute numbers, compare the 20 blue-on-green crimes with the blue population size of 20, and leap to the conclusion that all blue people are criminals. While the percentage of criminals in the blue population is almost certainly higher on the basis of simple probability (as blue criminals would otherwise need to be >8 more active than green ones), what you have there is a correlative rather than a causal relationship : we don't know to what extent the incidence of criminality in a population causes crime against that population, a classic chicken-and-egg problem that most likely does not have a simple binary solution.

[w1ntermute]

> Statistically, you would expect more crime against white people since there are so many more of them.

Actually, the crime rate among blacks is much higher even after normalizing for population.

[anigbrowl]

Maybe you should read the rest of my comment, which addressed exactly that issue.