In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.
Assuming USA population = 60% white, 20% hispanic, 13% black, 7% other.
Assuming an interracial altercation:
Odds of black attacking white: Whites are (60/87 = 69%) of the non-black population => 69%.
Odds of white attacking black: Blacks are (13/40 = 33%) of the non-white population => 33%.
So blacks are (85/69 => 23%) more likely to attack whites than a random attack.
From the random probability above blacks should be (69/33 = 2.1) times more likely to attack a white than a white would attack a black (given an interracial altercation). If blacks attack whites 85% of the time (given an interracial altercation) and that is 27 times more likely than a white attacking a black, then that is saying that whites attack blacks (85%/27 = 3%) of the time - as opposed to the expected 33% of the time for a random interracial altercation. I doubt this is the case, although I guess it COULD be. Let's see the data. This means that of the 40% of the non-white population, when a white attacks someone of that non-white population, that person attacked is only black 3% of the time! I call horseshit to that! Who the hell are whites attacking, American Indians!
Your reference is BULLSHIT
. Or it is retardedly misdirecting one with its numbers. My interpretation of its numbers is how a reasonable person would interpret it. Obviously, they are misrepresenting their case to me. How do you interpret their bullshit?
Odds of white attacking hispanic: Hispanics are (20/40 = 1/2) of the non-white population => 50%
Odds of hispanic attacking white: (Whites are 60/80) = 3/4 of the non-hispanic population => 75%
A hispanic should be only (75/50 => 50%) more likely to attack a white than vice versa (1.5 times).
Should I trust the data in your link? Not without seeing the data. I have no doubt the bullshitter who wrote your reference is misleading people with its numbers. That weblink is very dishonestly presenting data.
I suspect it is dishonestly mixing up inter-racial and intra-racial data. Obviously that webpage is. I haven't looked at the book that webpage is referencing.
EDIT: 80% of altercations are intra-racial. Your reference is misleading to the point of being dishonest. No doubt about it. It is obviously written for retards who wish to dishonestly view that situation in a ridiculously exaggerated, retarded, and biased way.
Please show me how that is not the case if you think otherwise, Scott - given that 80% of altercations are intraracial.
I have little doubt that one could probably find that black violence is much greater than with other groups. But your references are stating downright retarded things. And it is to mislead other retards.