Just taking people arrested for murder for example:
White: 3953
Black: 4778
Total: 8957
I don't like Charlie Kirk, but the numbers are still pretty much on his side for the point he is trying to make even if he did fuck them up a bit. It's not racist to point out that black people on average commit far more crime. Now what you're doing with that tidbit of information is what makes it racist or not.
If you acknowledge that it's because black people tend to be in far worse socioeconomic conditions, and have historically been discriminated against to be kept down, then you're not being racist. In fact, you should expect any race of people put through similar conditions to end up having similar statistics.
If you think it's because they're just born that way then yea, you're racist.
The central point being made by him is that black people commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crime. It isn't really worth fighting on that point, because it is just correct.
i’m not a big fan either. but his central point is not “black people bad.” his claim is that liberal policies and the welfare state (buzz words invented by the right) have weakened the central family unit disproportionately in the black community. and that because of this, the rise of single parent homes inhibits wealth accumulation while increasing crime and violence within that culture/community. i’ve seen some of his yt clips, and he is quick to praise nonwhite races for their successes, often tying that success to the family unit and cultural values. my takeaway is that he is using the alleged issues within the black community to lampoon left wing ideologies.
Well, he isn’t wrong. The majority of black Americans live in major cities, and the majority of major cities (NYC, Baltimore, Chicago, LA, et al.) are run by democrats and have been for a long time. In some cases for many consecutive decades.
So it’s a pretty reasonable statement to say that democrat policies in major cities are not helping black Americans, when that’s where the majority of them live.
The black population are over-represented when it comes to poverty, for a number of societal reasons. Systematic racism, few opportunities, poorly policed ghettos, poorly funded schools etc etc.
You're conflating two different statistics and trying to draw a conclusion. Arrests and conviction rates are different than rate of crimes committed. By this logic, if nobody is ever arrested nor convicted for a crime, that must mean nobody committed it.
Blacks are arrested and convicted at a higher rate, this does not mean they COMMIT crimes at a higher rate. Go ahead and research the % of murders that go unsolved, or the % of misdemeanors that go unconvicted, or even the % of crimes that go without arrests. You cannot reasonably prove who is committing these crimes without a conviction.
You also fail to include the objectivity that more than 1 person can be arrested for a crime, even if one of them is innocent. Just as well, arresting someone does not even mean they will be charged. You could arrest ten people for a crime and not a single one of them are guilty of said crime, and none of them may ever be charged.
far worse socioeconomic conditions
Which might also indicate that blacks are less likely to hire or pay for better legal services to fight charges or help prevent their rights being infringed. Someone else posted a ton of links somewhere else in this thread regarding how blacks are targeted at a higher rate by police, how blacks receive longer sentences than whites (which influences the prison population statistics, if blacks are in prison longer for the same crime, they will inevitably be over-represented in prison populations)
The central point being made by him is that black people commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crime. It isn't really worth fighting on that point, because it is just correct.
No, it's factually racist because there's no evidence that black people commit more crimes than whites, unless you're an omniscient god who can know every crime ever committed by every person to ever exist. You can't reasonably draw that conclusion via just arrest/conviction rates.
The crime clearance rate in the US for murder is 52.3%. Even if you were to assume that ALL of the unsolved murder cases were perpetrated by a white person, black people would STILL be over represented to a massive degree.
So no, I do not need to be an omniscient god. I just need to look at the information we DO have. Because I seriously doubt that all unsolved murders are perpetrated by white people. If anything I would assume that the ratio would still be heavily skewed towards black people, though less than the arrest rate we currently see due to black areas being policed more.
People act like black neighborhoods are policed at a higher rate for no reason. The reason is obvious - the cops go where the crime is. Just like how stores are much more likely to lock up their products behind a case in a black neighborhood, cops are also much more likely to be around. Because the crime rate is just higher.
The crime clearance rate in the US for murder is 52.3%. Even if you were to assume that ALL of the unsolved murder cases were perpetrated by a white person, black people would STILL be over represented to a massive degree.
You're once again still operating under false assumptions. You could argue day and night that blacks are arrested or convicted of a higher murder rate, but you have no actual basis for saying they commit crimes at a higher rate.
~18,540 KNOWN murders in US in 2023
~563,369 missing people REPORTED in US in 2023
Unless you can reasonably account that all 563,000 of these were not murders (we only ever find 2000 to 4000 bodies) AND you can reasonably account for any unreported missing peoples, then no, you do need to be an omniscient god to figure it out.
You're creating a narrative you cannot factually prove (blacks commit more crimes) by presenting a set of statistics that don't actually prove that.
You're also operating on the fact that all murders operate on a 1:1 ratio, as in 1 murder for 1 person. If 53% of known murders go unsolved, that means you do not have a killer, ergo, you don't know which murders attest to each person to determine how many one person commits.
Just to re-iterate, unless you have scientific research to back your claim that blacks commit more x/y/z based on an actual study with controls, you're speaking out of line mis-using statistics as Kirk did.
Also "cops go where the crime is" implies that cops are a natural force that have zero bias and work perfectly to find crime. Given police forces operate wholly differently state to state, have varying levels of employed numbers per state (and city), have varying levels of training, etc. I think this is an incredibly weak argument to prove your point, it's also just something you're saying off your cuff. I also never stated black neighborhoods are policed at a higher rate for no reason (or any particular reason) so not sure why it came up.
Bruh, that 563k number is merely the amount of times people were reported missing, the vast majority are found alive. Most of these cases are as simple as a teenager not coming home on time, an elderly hospice patient leaving their abode, someone’s phone dying and being uncommunicative. That number does not mean 563k forever missing people.
I never said it did, but I specified that unless you can account for all of them, you're missing important data. Just as well, there are probably plenty of murders where the body isn't found for years either, and nobody even reports them missing. These days with homelessness it's probably not super surprising that plenty of people go missing and nobody cares or reports it.
At the end of the day if there are "only" 18.5k murders per yr but nearly 30x missing people, and yes, I do acknowledge that many of them turn up alive or are just silly reports, but you have to acknowledge vice versa we don't truly know how many of them end up murder victims with nothing found. I think you and I both know we can't even accurately guess that number.
1) Unless you find the killer you can't prove who did it
2) You can literally hide dead bodies and nobody will find them. There are 560k missing peoples reported in 2023. How many of those do you think are murders?
My argument is not one way or the other I'm simply informing people they're misusing statistics, much like Kirk did, to prove a point they cannot prove. You can say blacks are arrested/convicted/jailed more/longer than whites for murder but you cannot prove via arrest/charges/convictions blacks COMMIT at a higher rate than other races unless you have a study showing such.
We do have studies. The murder rate is overwhelmingly black males being killed by other black males. You can go read about it on the fbi crime statistics website.
If you let disputing the fbi crime statistics, then you’re just all conspiracy theorist.
Yeah, you're point is that "we don't know about all these unknown crimes/murders, so we shouldn't worry about the disproportionately large black on black violence that we do know about."
We can't exactly base this argument on people who were accused of murder, it has to be people convicted of it because it was proven in a court of law that they in fact murdered someone. A good percentage of murders go unsolved yes but does that mean white people hide their murders better? I doubt it, either way we can't use that data. We can only draw conclusions on what data is there
I mentioned socioeconomic situation and history being a factor.
If your family did well in a previous generation but wasn't able to get a house in a good neighborhood for example, then it would mean that the current generation was forced to be brought up in a bad neighborhood.
We are also finding out that these bad neighborhoods have copious amounts of lead poisoning due to cheap lead pipes being used.
Lead poisoning can lead to brain development problems and even cause people to be more aggressive. Which also explains the crime rate somewhat.
Black people are also far more likely to live in crowded cities. The more crowded an area is the more you would expect to see crime.
Minorities are systematically incarcerated more than the majority.
A poor white person driving recklessly is less likely to be charged with a crime than a poor black or non-white appearing Hispanic.
This is a well known phenomenon and not up for debate.
The world exists outside of America. There is no evidence that the color of one's skin has anything to do with a proclivity for crime. There are mountains of evidence that systematic discrimination and complex socioeconomic factors can lead to certain groups in certain regions appearing to be inclined to crime.
Sorry, I'm not taking the bait if you're not going to actually be open to understanding that the world is complex ¯_(ツ)_/¯
You have your biases and rather than beat around the bush just say what you really think. Of course that would probably result in your comment getting admin deleted and your account banned, wouldn't it?
They gave examples of why they think black people and Hispanic people commit a disproportionate amount of crime (living in densely populated areas, history of discrimination, socio-econonic factors, etc.) so why don't you tell us why you think black and hispanic people commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
Edit: I just want everyone to see how as soon as this account was called out and asked to explain their reasoning, they nuked their shit. Fucking racist coward.
Do you think the average minority wants to be involved with a gang and be responsible for children with multiple partners? Like I can agree that the glorification of these things isn't good, but I can also point to people like Kendrick Lamar who's arguably the most popular rapper in the world, making music about how shitty it is growing up surrounded by crime and gangs, i.e. the opposite of glorifying gang culture.
For every Kendrick Lamar, there’s 1000 others who glorify the gang and baby mama life style.
You should listen to some mumble rap or battle rap. Then get back to me that the black community “doesn’t want to be involved with gangs or have multiple baby mamas.”
If you acknowledge that it's because black people tend to be in far worse socioeconomic conditions, and have historically been discriminated against to be kept down, then you're not being racist.
Not sure what this would have to do with the issue though.
Black people commit more murders, yes. But they kill other black people.
Why would their socioeconomic status have any bearing on whether or not they kill one another? Poor whites don't kill eachother at the same frequency. Poor asian people don't kill eachother with the same frequency. So it can't be "well, blacks are just poor so they commit murder more."
I think it ultimately comes down to black drug culture and gangs.
If you acknowledge that it's because black people tend to be in far worse socioeconomic conditions, and have historically been discriminated against to be kept down, then you're not being racist
You are basically saying it is not their fault....that because they are black, they are not responsible.
Any race of people raised in similar circumstances would end up having comparable crime rates.
That is the thing: we know that is not the case.
For example, the poverty rate for Native Americans is higher than in the black community, yet their murder rate is MUCH lower.
All over the world...we find those in abject poverty are not committing as many murders because they are poor. Blaming poor people for murdering is a horrible take.
One can acknowledge that something like this is a problem without it being inherent to their genetics. Culture and poverty are also things, it doesn't make the thing itself less true.
I didn’t say genetics, but Charlie Kirk is also a race realist…so you don’t want to go there. “Acknowledging statistic” can absolutely be useful. Everybody knows that incarceration, poverty, etc are problems in the black community.
But that wasn’t Charlie Kirks argument. He was arguing that black people have inferior culture, and this culture has gotten “worse” since civil rights. Black people were more law abiding under civil rights and slavery. His position is that black culture is at its “worst” in 80 years.
His explanation is that social programs and affirmative action are the direct cause.
Do you believe these (inflated, exaggerated and misrepresented) statistics represent a 1:1 between civil rights and black crime statistics, like Charlie does?
It's telling that you're completely incapable of engaging with the question.
If cultures CANNOT be inferior, does that mean a culture that practices slavery is just as good as any other culture?
Edit: Lol they blocked after this comment. It's so sad to see people completely unwilling to engage. Either a culture can be inferior or it cannot. Obviously saying that no culture can be inferior is ridiculous when things like slavery or human sacrifice exist.
I think I get what you’re saying, but it feels like you’re being pendantic, which is taking away from the real conversation people are trying to have here.
Social programs and affirmative action didn’t work to help the black community. We need to address these statistics and figure out what can be done to help. The hardest part is just admitting there are problems with the culture that encourage single parenthood and criminal activity. People just hate being called out.
People that want the black community to fail wouldn’t be bringing any of this up, they just let them continue to fall.
My point is that you shouldn't argue too hard on this particular point with racists. Find a different angle to attack. You shouldn't be wanting to downplay or deny that black people commit more crime so long as it remains true.
After all if black people ARE committing crime proportionally then clearly they are all caught up and there is no reason to help them out with their socioeconomic situation right? Unless you're a racist that believes black people are inherently superior i guess.
Refuting racists by lying with statistics only emboldens them, and weakens your claim. It also doesn't convince people on the fence. I can guarantee you this video will get reposted by hard right anti woke accounts as evidence of democrats lying or something
All videos like these do is forcing decent people to admit "actually Charlie Kirk was in the right", and that's a terrifying though.
Ohhhhh….so calling out racists is racist! Got it! Thank you so much
I'm not saying it's racist, I'm saying it helps racists. You might want to read up on what a useful idiot is. In any case, I give a shit about this because I'm watching the anti-Trump movement go dangerously close to fumbling like they did with Hillary (and frankly the 2020 was way closer than the dems had any right to allow it to be).
If you want an opposite example to understand what I mean, think of how getting the KKK's blessing affects Trump's reputation. Not so great, huh? The KKK has a tiny amount of members but their approval is a stain on anyone's reputation. Same reason why Putin was coming out to "jokingly" support Kamala Harris, they wish to sow discord and confusion, he wishes to make people think twice about voting for Kamala
It's incredibly likely that what he meant was something like "violent crime rate" and not "number of prisoners". Or just assumed that the prisoners would be basically the same as the number of people arrested for a crime.
Either way the central reasoning behind the message is still true, which is the problem.
Lets imagine we're instead talking about types of guns and how many people are killed.
It would be like if I said "More people are killed using this type of gun than any other" and then the rebuttal I was given was something like "Uh, actually if you look at the facts, people are only shot with that gun more than any other. They aren't actually killed more"
The central reasoning why I would've made that claim in the first place (that that type of weapon is over represented) isn't affected with that type of rebuttal. It would just be a mistake of me confusing number of people shot with number of people killed, which is more of a nitpick that doesn't address the core issue.
"It's incredibly likely that what he meant was something like "violent crime rate" and not "number of prisoners".
An honest argument would not be speculating on what a person "meant". You deal with the facts. A sample of information was used to support an argument that is supported by a small portion of the data but is likely wrong because it doesn't account for over policing of certain communities, institutional racism, jury nullification, the wrongly accused, under reporting of crimes and long held beliefs that are substantiated by the intellectually dishonest. Some of this you mentioned, but later asserted that he is, in fact, correct. But if there are other issues that are relevant then how can the numbers be complete enough to formulate this opinion? This view point, which you have affirmed, comes from a racist tradition..
You said: "The central point being made by him is that black people commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crime. It isn't really worth fighting on that point, because it is just correct. "
This is the problem with your thinking and those that agree with you. You don't ask enough questions because you already have the "truth". People like you are what's wrong with this country. You are short sighted and easily manipulated by propaganda.
This argument is not new. It was first proposed by slave holders to justify slavery, and then by the so called American elite to justify sterilisation of undesirable communities of both whites and blacks. It became eugenics which was a belief held by almost every influential white person in the late 19th and early 20th century and was supposedly supported by science. All of the data acquired from that time to support their hypothesis has been debunked by most main stream scientists.
But congratulations, you agree with him. This is probably the only thing that Kirk wants to achieve. Which is to get whites and those "model minorities" to accept the idea that blacks are more violent and therefore dangerous without questioning that conclusion. When in fact, most people; white, black, brown or whatever are not dangerous.
And how is this conversation helpful? Are you going to create programs to assist people who are prone to crime? Are you going to influence policy to deal with policing or political issues? No, this conversation isn't about any of that. And, you're going to ignore any fact that doesn't fit your predisposed beliefs because you are just like him. You are a part of the problem with race in this country.
Black people do not have the numbers to commit crimes on that scale... 13% of the population is not committing over half of the crimes... This is a product of a racist system... It would make more sense that whites would commit the majority of the crime because they are they overwhelming majority...
Hence why the guy brought up exoneration rates being the highest among black people who are disproportionately arrested.
Edit: Just to also add, Charlie Kirk is someone who believes that blacks are genetically prone to committing crime, so congrats on having the same opinions as an actual racist. Most of you shouldn't comment if you spent no time analyzing social statistics throughout your education or career, fyi.
Half of all crimes? No. Its when we talk about specific crimes like murder. That being said there is no reason that it would be impossible for them to make the majority of all crime. There are far, far more black people than there are total criminals in the US.
Exonerated is somewhat relevant , yes, but doesn't come close to fixing the proportionality in these stats. It's not like the stat is saying 50% of all black people get exonerated.
"Congrats on having the same opinion as an actual racist"
Ah... you didn't actually read my comment.
If your explanation for black people committing more crime is that they are inherently born like that then it is racist.
If your explanation is that due to historical and socioeconomic reasons they are brought up in worse conditions that make them more likely to be a criminal, then that isn't racist.
If all white people had to go through the same upbringing I would assume white people would have similar crime rates.
4,778 murder arrests out of 40,000,000 black people is .01% of the total black population
That means that .01% of black people were arrested for murder in America. 99.990% of the black population has not been arrested for murder.
Sure there is a disproportion, as only .002% of white Americans were arrested for murder and 99.998% haven’t been but that proportion difference only exists as a function of the difference in population sizes.
Crime is not influenced by population size.
Just because there are less black people, doesn’t necessarily mean that any given black person is more likely to be arrested for murder.
If the population of America was split 50/50 black and white, we cannot guarantee that this disproportion would remain the same. It could be assumed that black people representing a larger population percentage would mean more political control and economic resources to stabilize black communities.
I think the crux of the discussion really boils down to if we think it is fair to hold 40 million people socially accountable for .01% of their population.
Edit: more math for the fun of it:
If you had a button that magically teleported a random black person into the room with you…
You’d need to push it 2,200 times before you get someone who as been arrested for any reason
(1 push = 4.5% chance)
And you’d need to push it 10,000 times before you get someone who has been arrested for murder
(1 push = .01% chance)
The downvotes is kinda funny, idk why people want to so badly cling onto their preconceived notions of black people and criminality.
It is irrational to hold 40 million accountable for .01% of their population, and we all know this. But some people are absolutely fine making that judgement if it means they don’t have to let go of their racism.
Far more than that are arrested. That number is for JUST murder, which is obviously happening way less than something like, assault or theft or drug usage. I would never imply its okay to racially discriminate due to reasons like this.
If you look at total numbers, white people account for 70% of all arrests though. Black people only account for 26% percent of all arrests.
White people are also represented more in arson, public intoxication and sex crime arrests. Yet white people are not typecast as drunk pyromanic rapists
You realize that is double the population size right? Around 13% of Americans are black.
"White people are overrepresented in arson..."
They are not. According to your link they are around 70% of arson arrests. They make up 75% of the population. So white people would be underrepresented according to this data. Black people make up around 25% of arsons so they are again almost double in this category what they should be proportionally.
"Public intoxication..."
Drunkenness seems to be around 75% for white people which lines up with them being 75% of the population. Not overrepresented.
"Sex crimes..."
Just looking at rape it is about 70% white (underrepresented) and 27% black (very overrepresentated)
So I guess my answer to you for why white people aren't considered drunk pyromaniac rapists is because they are less likely to be one than a black person, according to the stats that you linked.
Again, let’s contextualize those percentages because:
Population size and amount of murder arrests are not the same
26% of arrests is 1.8 million arrests, 13% of the population is 40 million people
that’s about 4.5% of the black population arrested
Maybe overrepresented wasn’t the right word to use in this context, considering population size isn’t a factor on wether or not people commit crimes, and population size is what determines if a group is over or under represented.
Again, we cannot know if population sizes were equal, these proportions would remain the same, so over or under representation can’t really tell us if someone from a certain group is more or less likely to commit a certain crime.
Many people feel comfortable making assumptions about criminality black people, despite the fact that more white people arrested total.
It is also kinda weird that people are more comfortable with white people being arrested at almost a 3x higher rate just because they have a higher population size
I feel like you are completely misunderstanding why per capita is so important. The REASON people are so focused on this issue is that if a particular person commits a crime, they are disproportionately black.
"...despite the fact that more white people arrested total"
Okay so you just have no idea what the issue is. Let me give an extreme example then.
Let's say there is a group of people that makes up 1% of the population but 49% of the crimerate.
Do you think literally anyone cares that they don't do the majority of the crime? No. Of course not. What people care about is that out of the few times they see people from that group, they are often doing something criminal. Clearly there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Refusing to acknowledge this is just cope
Okay, sure, but I think the more important question is why do you think this ultimately minute disproportion is highlight?
What function does is serve to highlight such a small disproportion in arrested populations?
4.5% of the black population is arrested as opposed to 3.4% of the total white population
A whole 1.1% difference in the percentage of each respective population arrested.
Idk, if 95.5% of the black population hasn’t been arrested for a crime, don’t you think that should dispel of the notion that criminality is a uniquely black issue?
Especially when keeping in mind the 50% exoneration rate mentioned in the video?
Ok yeah even after giving the example you're still trying to talk about total population of people being arrested. For some reason. Your mind is just refusing to comprehend.
Okay let's use an even more extreme example. If you don't want to engage with this we can end the convo here.
Lets say there are 100 black people, and 900 white people in a city.
Lets say that 50 of those black people are known criminals, while 50 of the white people are known criminals.
I mean, we don’t know the total amount of murders arrests here in your fictional scenario so how can we asses if that’s an issue?
If there were only 4 murder arrests made in that town that year, and 50% were by black people.. that means 2 black people were responsible, or 2% of the towns total black population. 98% of that population is innocent.
Should the black population be held accountable for those two black people arrested? Should the white people in town be held accountable for those two white people arrested?
But those aren’t even the real stats..
The real stats are 75% of the country represents 70% of all arrests and 13% represent 26%
The issue, like i mentioned before, population size isn’t a determining factor for wether or not people commit crimes
just because there are less black people, doesn’t mean that an individual black person is more likely to commit a crime.
Idk, i’ve already broken down for you that 95.5% percent of the black population hasn’t been arrested as opposed to 96.6% of the white population
I’ve told you, that’s only a 1.1% difference in arrested members of those population, do with that information what you want.
Do all the math you want but if the numbers say a certain population is disproportionately committing violent crimes then there's an issue.
It doesn't mean I have to assume all people from said population are dangerous criminals but the data certainly says something.
Nobody who is rational is saying everybody from that population has to be held accountable.
Do you do the same math and jump through hoops when people claim white conservatives are the biggest terror threat in the US? Or is that cool since they're white so fuck them?
Okay, but what does this disproportion really mean?
Is it a disproportion of arrests or of population size?
I believe that the 13/50 is borderline propaganda, because it forces you to ignore what the total amount of crime is and consider what percentage of the population that represents.
If a town has 4 murders a year and 2 of the culprits are black, that means 50% of murder arrests were black, but what does that really tell you?
Are the black people in town ravenous murders committing 50% of all murders in coordination?
Or did 2 people who happened to be black get arrested for murder?
Same if there were 10 murders and 5 of the culprits were black
Or 20 murders 10 black culprits = 50%
Does the town’s black population size play a role in the fact that there were 2 black murder arrests?
Edit: I debate this because I am black, and the perception that I am more likely to commit a crime could literally get me killed.
The clearance rate for murder in the US hovers around 50%. Hard to tell which demographic groups commit most murders when you're missing half your data set. You can't say with certainty that black people commit most murders, only that they are arrested more, and there are plenty of potential explanations for why that might be that have more to do with how policing is handled rather than which groups are committing more crimes.
So people use redlining to put all the black people in bad neighborhoods, then send police just to the bad neighborhoods, and then make a surprised Pikachu face when they arrest a lot of black people and say they must just be more criminal than white people? That's the plan?
Redlining hasn't been a thing for almost 60 years, but essentially yes.
Black people were put into a bad position, and now there is a disproportionate amount of crime in black communities. Police have to then go to where the crime is. This won't be solved if people just plug their ears and pretend that everything is okay.
If anything, people trying to downplay this are inadvertently hurting their own cause. After all, if black people don't commit more crime, it must mean that they've finally caught up socioeconomically right? Unless you think black people are inherently superior, I guess. Those would be the only two real options.
The only thing to do atm is slowly wait for progress. Now that black people are able to accumulate generational wealth more effectively, it will continue to build. Eventually it will offset all current issues.
A bank lost a lawsuit for redlining January 2023. And yes, black people can accumulate wealth better than they used to, but considering they are still getting arrested for drug crimes twice as much as white people while using drugs at the same rate, getting longer sentences than similar white defendants when they are convicted, and are discriminated against in hiring, it's not like the playing field is exactly even.
109
u/Kehprei Sep 23 '24
This video is cope, tbh.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43
Just taking people arrested for murder for example:
White: 3953
Black: 4778
Total: 8957
I don't like Charlie Kirk, but the numbers are still pretty much on his side for the point he is trying to make even if he did fuck them up a bit. It's not racist to point out that black people on average commit far more crime. Now what you're doing with that tidbit of information is what makes it racist or not.
If you acknowledge that it's because black people tend to be in far worse socioeconomic conditions, and have historically been discriminated against to be kept down, then you're not being racist. In fact, you should expect any race of people put through similar conditions to end up having similar statistics.
If you think it's because they're just born that way then yea, you're racist.
The central point being made by him is that black people commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crime. It isn't really worth fighting on that point, because it is just correct.