Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[thelakelander]

A proper discussion on black-on-black crime can't take place without putting it within its proper content.  For example, it's not all peaches and cream across the tracks. Crime in general is based on environment, not race. This article Stephendare posted in the Zimmerman thread seems ideal for this discussion.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/15/the-trayvon-martin-killing-and-the-myth-of-black-on-black-crime.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

Trayvon Martin and the Myth of "Black on Black Crime"

Crime is driven by proximity and opportunity, writes Jamelle Bouie—which is why 86 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders.

Last week, in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag "#justicefordarryl," Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green's murder. But this wasn't a call for help and assistance for Green's family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday's decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him "not guilty" of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have "injected" race into the discussion, as if there's nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman's race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the "black-on-black" crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, "49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don't care. Obama doesn't care. #JusticeForDarryl."

The idea that "black-on-black" crime is the real story in Martin's killing isn't a novel one. In addition to Shapiro, you'll hear the argument from conservative African-American activists like Crystal White, as well as people outside the media, like Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara, who said that his client "never would have been charged with a crime" if he were black.

(It's worth noting, here, that Zimmerman wasn't charged with a crime. At least, not at first. It took six weeks of protest and pressure for Sanford police to revisit the killing and bring charges against him. Indeed, in the beginning, Martin's cause had less to do with the identity of the shooter and everything to do with the appalling disinterest of the local police department.)

But there's a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There's no such thing as "black-on-black" crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you'll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.

What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it's driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it's because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.

Nor are African-Americans especially criminal. If they were, you would still see high rates of crime among blacks, even as the nation sees a historic decline in criminal offenses. Instead, crime rates among African-Americans, and black youth in particular, have taken a sharp drop. In Washington, D.C., for example, fewer than 10 percent of black youth are in a gang, have sold drugs, have carried a gun, or have stolen more than $100 in goods.

Overall, figures from a variety of institutions—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics—show that among black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are at their lowest rates in 40 years, as are rates of violent crime and victimization. And while it's true that young black men are a disproportionate share of the nation's murder victims, it's hard to disentangle this from the stew of hyper-segregation (often a result of deliberate policies), entrenched poverty, and nonexistent economic opportunities that characterizes a substantial number of black communities. Hence the countless inner-city anti-violence groups that focus on creating opportunity for young, disadvantaged African-Americans, through education, mentoring, and community programs. Blacks care intensely about the violence that happens in their communities. After all, they have to live with it.

"Black-on-black crime" has been part of the American lexicon for decades, but as a specific phenomenon, it's no more real than "white-on-white crime." Unlike the latter, however, the idea of "black-on-black crime" taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality—the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg's campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.

Indeed, these fears are the reason that—in predominantly African-American neighborhoods across the country—police gathered and waited. There might be riots, observers said, and we have to be prepared. Why? The protests in support of Martin have been peaceful, and no one has called for violence or retribution. But that doesn't matter.

America is afraid of black people, and that's especially true—it seems—when it thinks they might be angry.

As for the Chicago killings, there is outrage.  However, the major difference between the GZ/TM situation and those is when the killers are identified, they end up being put away behind bars.

[Cheshire Cat]

  Believe me I thought twice before wading into any of the Trayvon discussions but it is my deep feeling that we need to walk into some of these discussions in order to bring some sort of understanding as to why race and discussion of race remains such a volatile subject and much of that I believe is the fanning of passions as opposed to clarity of thinking and honest discussion.  As long as people simply take the lead of the angry or political in cases like this the core importance of an issue is lost in blame, angry words and passion.

And for that Diane, thank you.  Even though not everyone comments, a lot of us follow the board and both respect and admire your ability to act as voice of calm and reason when emotions get a little too involved.

Wow Jaybird, thank you.  I just feel in my heart that real conversation can change things and that everyone has the right to their views but they are so much more useful when shared without vitriol.  It really isn't that hard to be respectful.

[Cheshire Cat]

A proper discussion on black-on-black crime can't take place without putting it within it's proper content.  For example, it's not all peaches and cream across the tracks. Crime in general is based on environment, not race. This article Stephendare posted in the Zimmerman thread seems ideal for this discussion.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/15/the-trayvon-martin-killing-and-the-myth-of-black-on-black-crime.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

Trayvon Martin and the Myth of "Black on Black Crime"

Crime is driven by proximity and opportunity, writes Jamelle Bouie—which is why 86 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders.

Last week, in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag "#justicefordarryl," Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green's murder. But this wasn't a call for help and assistance for Green's family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday's decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him "not guilty" of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have "injected" race into the discussion, as if there's nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman's race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the "black-on-black" crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, "49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don't care. Obama doesn't care. #JusticeForDarryl."

The idea that "black-on-black" crime is the real story in Martin's killing isn't a novel one. In addition to Shapiro, you'll hear the argument from conservative African-American activists like Crystal White, as well as people outside the media, like Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara, who said that his client "never would have been charged with a crime" if he were black.

(It's worth noting, here, that Zimmerman wasn't charged with a crime. At least, not at first. It took six weeks of protest and pressure for Sanford police to revisit the killing and bring charges against him. Indeed, in the beginning, Martin's cause had less to do with the identity of the shooter and everything to do with the appalling disinterest of the local police department.)

But there's a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There's no such thing as "black-on-black" crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you'll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.

What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it's driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it's because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.

Nor are African-Americans especially criminal. If they were, you would still see high rates of crime among blacks, even as the nation sees a historic decline in criminal offenses. Instead, crime rates among African-Americans, and black youth in particular, have taken a sharp drop. In Washington, D.C., for example, fewer than 10 percent of black youth are in a gang, have sold drugs, have carried a gun, or have stolen more than $100 in goods.

Overall, figures from a variety of institutions—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics—show that among black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are at their lowest rates in 40 years, as are rates of violent crime and victimization. And while it's true that young black men are a disproportionate share of the nation's murder victims, it's hard to disentangle this from the stew of hyper-segregation (often a result of deliberate policies), entrenched poverty, and nonexistent economic opportunities that characterizes a substantial number of black communities. Hence the countless inner-city anti-violence groups that focus on creating opportunity for young, disadvantaged African-Americans, through education, mentoring, and community programs. Blacks care intensely about the violence that happens in their communities. After all, they have to live with it.

"Black-on-black crime" has been part of the American lexicon for decades, but as a specific phenomenon, it's no more real than "white-on-white crime." Unlike the latter, however, the idea of "black-on-black crime" taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality—the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg's campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.

Indeed, these fears are the reason that—in predominantly African-American neighborhoods across the country—police gathered and waited. There might be riots, observers said, and we have to be prepared. Why? The protests in support of Martin have been peaceful, and no one has called for violence or retribution. But that doesn't matter.

America is afraid of black people, and that's especially true—it seems—when it thinks they might be angry.

As for the Chicago killings, there is outrage.  However, the major difference between the GZ/TM situation and those is when the killers are identified, they end up being put away behind bars.

Thanks for reposting the article Ennis.  It is a good one for this discussion to be sure.  So far no one has touched your query on the Zimmerman thread about how environment impacts this type of crime.  Are you willing to lead us down that path of discussion.  I would be very interested in you take on the issue from all sides. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Caught this too late.  Anderson Cooper just had an exclusive with one of the jurors on the Zimmerman case. This is on CNN and the broadcast continues right now. 

[JayBird]

A proper discussion on black-on-black crime can't take place without putting it within its proper content.  For example, it's not all peaches and cream across the tracks. Crime in general is based on environment, not race. This article Stephendare posted in the Zimmerman thread seems ideal for this discussion.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/15/the-trayvon-martin-killing-and-the-myth-of-black-on-black-crime.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

Trayvon Martin and the Myth of "Black on Black Crime"

Crime is driven by proximity and opportunity, writes Jamelle Bouie—which is why 86 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders.

Last week, in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag "#justicefordarryl," Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green's murder. But this wasn't a call for help and assistance for Green's family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday's decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him "not guilty" of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have "injected" race into the discussion, as if there's nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman's race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the "black-on-black" crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, "49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don't care. Obama doesn't care. #JusticeForDarryl."

The idea that "black-on-black" crime is the real story in Martin's killing isn't a novel one. In addition to Shapiro, you'll hear the argument from conservative African-American activists like Crystal White, as well as people outside the media, like Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara, who said that his client "never would have been charged with a crime" if he were black.

(It's worth noting, here, that Zimmerman wasn't charged with a crime. At least, not at first. It took six weeks of protest and pressure for Sanford police to revisit the killing and bring charges against him. Indeed, in the beginning, Martin's cause had less to do with the identity of the shooter and everything to do with the appalling disinterest of the local police department.)

But there's a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There's no such thing as "black-on-black" crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you'll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.

What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it's driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it's because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.

Nor are African-Americans especially criminal. If they were, you would still see high rates of crime among blacks, even as the nation sees a historic decline in criminal offenses. Instead, crime rates among African-Americans, and black youth in particular, have taken a sharp drop. In Washington, D.C., for example, fewer than 10 percent of black youth are in a gang, have sold drugs, have carried a gun, or have stolen more than $100 in goods.

Overall, figures from a variety of institutions—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics—show that among black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are at their lowest rates in 40 years, as are rates of violent crime and victimization. And while it's true that young black men are a disproportionate share of the nation's murder victims, it's hard to disentangle this from the stew of hyper-segregation (often a result of deliberate policies), entrenched poverty, and nonexistent economic opportunities that characterizes a substantial number of black communities. Hence the countless inner-city anti-violence groups that focus on creating opportunity for young, disadvantaged African-Americans, through education, mentoring, and community programs. Blacks care intensely about the violence that happens in their communities. After all, they have to live with it.

"Black-on-black crime" has been part of the American lexicon for decades, but as a specific phenomenon, it's no more real than "white-on-white crime." Unlike the latter, however, the idea of "black-on-black crime" taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality—the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg's campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.

Indeed, these fears are the reason that—in predominantly African-American neighborhoods across the country—police gathered and waited. There might be riots, observers said, and we have to be prepared. Why? The protests in support of Martin have been peaceful, and no one has called for violence or retribution. But that doesn't matter.

America is afraid of black people, and that's especially true—it seems—when it thinks they might be angry.

As for the Chicago killings, there is outrage.  However, the major difference between the GZ/TM situation and those is when the killers are identified, they end up being put away behind bars.

Thanks, I missed this in the other board but that's growing at a new page every hour it seems.  Let me grab dinner and I hope Ennis that you jump into this.  From a quick scan, I will say I have used statistics like that before in discussions with prisoners in Lake Butler CI and I will never forget what one told me. He said "I grew up in 29th & Chase in Jacksonville and I was more afraid of my neighbor than some (slang word for white guy) with gun in his pocket.  Those numbers don't mean (slang) when it's 100 brothers getting cut down and only 5 (slang for white men)." Now, to keep in context he was imprisoned for the murder of his neighbor, and he held within him a lot of hate.

[thelakelander]

^I'm just getting back in to town.  That Zimmerman thread has gotten so large during my commute back, that I'm going to have to search and dig out my post about about economics and environment.  This issue of black-on-black crime isn't about race.  Stats tend to be pretty skewed when they are cherry picked. Anyway, the underlying issue deals with economics and environment.  Change those, you change the results and it doesn't matter what the population's skin pigmentation happens to be.

[Cheshire Cat]

The two takeaway statements I got from her was first that they "never" discussed race.  Second that when they first went back there were three for not guilty, one for murder 2 and two for manslaughter.  She said that as they read and re-read the law there was no way to find Zimmerman guilty of either charge.  She went on to say that a couple of jurors wanted to find him guilty of something because Trayvon had died, but the law didn't support either charge. 

She said all the jurors wept after they had come to the verdict and given it to the bailiff and that none of them ever want to serve on another jury.   She also said that they were totally surprised by how big the public interest had become in the trial and that race had been brought into the picture.  She said none of the jurors even thought about race as a factor. She also wanted the public to know that they combed through all the evidence again and listened over and over to the testimony and did their very best to render a verdict according to law. 

[thelakelander]

The two takeaway statements I got from her was first that they "never" discussed race.  Second that when they first went back there were three for not guilty, one for murder 2 and two for manslaughter.  She said that as they read and re-read the law there was no way to find Zimmerman guilty of either charge.  She went on to say that a couple of jurors wanted to find him guilty of something because Trayvon had died, but the law didn't support either charge. 

She said all the jurors wept after they had come to the verdict and given it to the bailiff and that none of them ever want to serve on another jury.   She also said that they were totally surprised by how big the public interest had become in the trial and that race had been brought into the picture.  She said none of the jurors even thought about race as a factor. She also wanted the public to know that they combed through all the evidence again and listened over and over to the testimony and did their very best to render a verdict according to law. 

Totally understandable.  I think he's guilty of manslaughter but I'm also sure he did fear for his life when TM started getting the best of him.  After all, from his perspective, TM was a thug on the prowl.  If I find anything wrong, it's the idea that one can provoke an incident, shoot the victim when the victim gets the best of him and walk away free on a claim of self defense. 

IMO, there's no telling what can of worms we are opening here.  If what I've described is true (which it appears to be), then I believe we need to work on modifying law to not allow such a chain of events to happen and the instigator get away with it.

[JayBird]

The two takeaway statements I got from her was first that they "never" discussed race.  Second that when they first went back there were three for not guilty, one for murder 2 and two for manslaughter.  She said that as they read and re-read the law there was no way to find Zimmerman guilty of either charge.  She went on to say that a couple of jurors wanted to find him guilty of something because Trayvon had died, but the law didn't support either charge. 

She said all the jurors wept after they had come to the verdict and given it to the bailiff and that none of them ever want to serve on another jury.   She also said that they were totally surprised by how big the public interest had become in the trial and that race had been brought into the picture.  She said none of the jurors even thought about race as a factor. She also wanted the public to know that they combed through all the evidence again and listened over and over to the testimony and did their very best to render a verdict according to law. 

Totally understandable.  I think he's guilty of manslaughter but I don't doubt that he didn't fear for his life with TM started getting the best of him.  If I find anything wrong, it's the idea that one can provoke an incident, shoot the victim when the victim gets the best of him and walk away free on a claim of self defense. 

IMO, there's no telling what can of worms we are opening here.  If what I've described is true (which it appears to be), then I believe we need to work on modifying law to not allow such a chain of events to happen and the instigator get away with it.

Clearly stated, bottom line.

[ChriswUfGator]

ALL evidence.  Anything found on the phone has to be shared.  "Pertinent to the case" will be decided by the judge.  Ask your friend Chris.

Im sure he will weigh in shortly

Stephen you know I love ya bud, but NotNow's right on this one. It's anything in the possession of the state with few very limited exceptions, and possession's imputed to not only SAO and their investigators, but also law enforcement and any agency of the executive branch. The photos should have been turned over, no question. Whether they were admissible at trial would depend on who wins the ruling on the motion in limine or wins the objection when somebody attempts to introduce them, and in this particular case the state actually succeeded in keeping most of it out. But no question at all that they should have been given to the defense. Failing to do so was just one of several serious ethical lapses that SAO4 appeared to use as a crutch in the absence of a viable strategy, commencing with the filing of the affidavit in support of the warrant and getting worse from there.

Also FWIW: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-15/story/state-attorney-corey-scrutinized-nationally-over-handling-trayvon

[AngryMuffin]

Blah blah blah.  So much talking about nothing.  Everyone knows black people kill a lot of other black people.  Everyone (who is living in the real world) knows that young black males commit a lot more crime per capita than any other race.  Great. So you've spent two pages talking about stuff everyone already knows.  Known facts.

-- Why does this demographic commit so much violent crime?

-- What can the rest of society do to slow it down?

[thelakelander]

He's being paid a lot of money to argue a point a certain way.  I'm sure if he was paid by the other side, he'd argue in the opposite direction.

[Cheshire Cat]

Blah blah blah.  So much talking about nothing.  Everyone knows black people kill a lot of other black people.  Everyone (who is living in the real world) knows that young black males commit a lot more crime per capita than any other race.  Great. So you've spent two pages talking about stuff everyone already knows.  Known facts.

-- Why does this demographic commit so much violent crime?

-- What can the rest of society do to slow it down?

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this last post tells me you are intent upon making your own point about Blacks and crime that is not born of concern but rather accusative.  I don't think there is a place in this conversation where that attitude toward this discussion has value.  Perhaps you should reconsider your approach if you expect anyone to entertain your views and ideas. 

[thelakelander]

Blah blah blah.  So much talking about nothing.  Everyone knows black people kill a lot of other black people.  Everyone (who is living in the real world) knows that young black males commit a lot more crime per capita than any other race.  Great. So you've spent two pages talking about stuff everyone already knows.  Known facts.

-- Why does this demographic commit so much violent crime?

-- What can the rest of society do to slow it down?

AngryMuffin, I've already answered both of those questions.  You ignored both in that long Zimmerman thread to go back and forth trading pot shots with Stephendare instead. 

[comncense]

I found an interesting article at http://www.theroot.com/views/why-don-t-we-talk-about-white-white-crime?page=0,1. I'll just quote a few bits from it.

The term "black on black" crime is a destructive, racialized colloquialism that perpetuates an idea that blacks are somehow more prone to violence. This is untrue and fully verifiable by FBI, DOJ and census (pdf) data. Yet the fallacy is so fixed that even African Americans have come to believe it.

In Michelle Alexander's book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, she explains that the term was coined in the 1980s as American cities underwent transformation as a result of riots, white flight and the onslaught of the drug trade. David Wilson, a professor at the University of Illinois, documents the phenomena in Inventing Black-on-Black Violence. Wilson says that instead of attributing increased crime activity to poverty, inequality and disenfranchisement, the media chose to blame "a supposedly defective, aberrant black culture."

In a 2010 piece published by The Root, "The Myth of Black-on-Black Violence," Natalie Hopkinson opines that journalists should follow the direction of the United Kingdom, where the Guardian newspaper banned the use of the phrase. A Guardian stylebook asked authors to ''imagine the police saying they were investigating an incident of white-on-white violence ... " Hopkinson concludes, "The term 'black-on-black violence' is a slander against the majority of law-abiding black Americans, rich and poor, who get painted by this broad and crude brush."

African-American media and policymakers have been equally complicit in promoting a "black-on-black crime" anecdote, thinking that it could help address some of the community's problems; but what it has actually done is provide support for racial profiling and promote the disproportionate policing of black criminality as "legitimate" and "acceptable." This over-policing has led to disproportionately higher rates of arrests in black communities, reinforcing the idea that blacks commit more crimes.

If we were to talk about "white-on-white crime," then at least we'd be addressing issues like gun violence in a racially neutral way. That doesn't happen because too many Americans remain convinced that black or brown people are the problem.

Washington Post columnist George Will said that despite the Trayvon tragedy, "150 black men are killed every week in this country," and "about 94 percent of them by other black men."

... the exacting truth that white Americans are just as likely to be killed by other whites. According to Justice Department statistics (pdf), 84 percent of white people killed every year are killed by other whites.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0325.pdf

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf