BLM should focus on black-black crime in poor neighborhoods instead of police brutality

"...all of your sources are very biased." There's no such thing as an unbiased news source. Mapping Police Violence's chart sites itself and the US Census from 2014... to talk about police violence from 2015. I don't understand how that works. Oh, and "Devastating Facts on Black-on-Black Crime" isn't? How hypocritical. "Survive Alive... has not a damn thing to do with violence." Got the name wrong. It's project STAYING ALIVE. Apologies. [http://city.milwaukee.gov...] "...Unless the kids can run away from a gang member or use their new found spiritual capabilities to calm the attacker this organization does nothing for crime." This argument is asinine. The only way to prevent crime is to create better communities through youth outreach, and the RR also deals with these issues. Check the website one more time. "...judging by their news feed the gun violence and justice they are talking about is that of police shootings." Yes, RainbowPUSH talks about police brutality, but yes, they specialize in community centered crime. Since communities are usually segregated in these poor communities (because of redlining) [https://www.washingtonpost.com...] the gun violence focused on is intraracial. Also, it is national, try again. [http://www.rainbowpush.org...] "...even if all of these organizations dealt with crime they are not recognized national [sic] like BLM..." Understand this. Crime isn't stopped through protest. Protesting is utilized the state because protests generate media interest which generates pushback from the population. Vox Populi. Crime is stopped through community outreach -- helping the youth and disadvantaged within the communities which serve to destroy the very need for crime, educating the people so that there are set alternatives, LEGAL alternatives to committing crimes LIKE burglaries which cause black death, and working with politicians to create laws which better serve communities. BLM is focusing on an entirely different issue, one which is still important and needs to be at the forefront of the media so that legal change can occur to stop state-sponsored killing of black people. The framework through which you're viewing the structural problems facing black people are all wrong. Here are a list of many, many, programs across the country working to better black communities. [http://www.tnj.com...] [http://www.diversitybestpractices.com...] I isolate Milwaukee because it is a small city which is also very segregated, which is good for isolating data relating to racial community outreach. I am currently not living in America, I'm on a study abroad trip, and will return soon. [http://247wallst.com...] "Most violent crime is interracial. The article is horrendous, not only does its click bait advertising hint towards its poor reliability the writer is obviously hysterical claiming the term "black-on-black crime" enables racists." I said that most crime was INTRAracial not INTERracial. This means that it happens within the race (i.e., black-on-black v. black-on-native american. Here are the FBI stats on that. I didn't mean to claim that whites are more violent, rather, I wanted to make the assertion that all of the aforementioned traits occur within the white community as well. That article aggregated the most data apropos to my case. [https://ucr.fbi.gov...] "1) 84% of white murder victims were white: Not sure what this has to do with black-on-black crime, in fact this reinforces the fact that most murders are between people of the same race." This is the point I'm making. It's not an anomaly or something to be protested. Rather, this is simply a natural occurrence that must be solved through community outreach. The difference between that and state-sponsored violence is that black people are killed at a higher rate than whites. [Even though whites have a larger population so the numbers are larger, but per capita, the numbers aren't very large at all.] The rest of these debunks don't mean anything; I'll refute them anyway. (+ethos.) "2) Whites kill more whites than black people kill each other: The article lays down some numbers which I am going to assume are roughly correct. 3,172 white people were killed by other whites and 2,695 black people were killed by other blacks. Sure white people kill more of their own in numbers but proportionally black people are killing more of their population. Whites are killed by other white only 1.2 times more than the amount of black people killed by other blacks. The white population however is ~5 times larger than the black population so that means, proportionally, black people are killing each other at a rate ~4 times higher than whites." Yes. Police brutality rates are also higher for black people, Latinx people, and Native populations. This is apropos to nothing. "3) White people commit crimes more than any other race: With the couple of crime stats they gave white people commit the crime 2/3 of the time while black people commit them 1/3 of the time. White people are 2/3 the population while blacks are only 13% this means that white people are committing the "normal" amount of crime for their population size while black people are committing the same crimes at rates 3 times higher." Black people commit the highest rates within their communities, yes. This doesn't matter at all in relation to the argument. "4) White people kill more members of vulnerable populations than any other race: does it matter what age is being killed?Putting this fact in there suggests that Children and the Elderly are more important than everyone else. The age of the victims doesn't matter, the number of victims matters." That makes no sense. It's not saying that these populations are more important, it's saying they're more VULNERABLE, i.e., less able to protect themselves. (apologies if the caps are obnoxious, I'm too lazy to put italics.) If a population is less able to protect themselves, the mortality rate is higher. Adult men can protect themselves better than the disabled or the young. Therefore the disabled and young should be protected more. Very simple. It's not the "number of victims [that matter]", it's the infolding of protection spread out among the community and ability of one to defend themselves from a threat. This, again, is apropos to nothing, but it's something I'd like to refute. "5) Gang murders are most common among white gangs: The stats are as follows: gang murders are committed by 53.3% whites and 42.2% blacks. I've done this enough times. Whites are 2/3 of the population and 13% black. You do the math, blacks are committing proportionally more gang murders for whites." Yes, the black crime rate is higher within their communities. I'm not saying it isn't. (This is because of a history of institutional racism, black communities have higher poverty rates, suffer from poorly funded schools, and are more likely to be targeted by police, so of course the crime rate is going to be higher. This is only another reason that community outreach is so important. Also, since racial profiling plays into black crime deaths due to a self-fulfilling prophecy [http://www.progressive.org...]) My argument was that Black Lives Matter talked about intraracial crime. "Moving on, give me an example of a coordinated event by BLM protesting black-on-black crime and I'll believe you. The vox article surely doesn't prove anything." This is another asinine argument that I answered above. Protesting doesn't stop crime. Education and political outreach stops crime. Studies prove that community outreach solves crime. It is by no means a quick fix, but it works. Again, protesting and outreach serve different purposes. [https://www.ncjrs.gov...] "Aren't there way more white victims of police violence?: Their answer is yes there are but proportionally speaking black people are killed more. It's funny how all your other articles does account for proportions but the second using proportions helps your argument you'll use it." I don't understand this. I never once claimed that black crime is proportional. I claimed that high rates of crime intraracially are normal more generally, but these claims are not the same. Equating them is dishonest. You completely dropped my argument about how there is no other group talking about police violence on the same scale as BLM, bringing the issue to light. Without this, police brutality continues, and that's no good for anyone. Here's my main offensive theses. 1. There are already community intervention groups working to stop intraracial crime, which neuters the need for BLM to do it. 2. BLM doing it would be dumb, because protests don't solve crime, outreach groups do. Protests bring attention to an issue and create public pushback against the state. 3. Disproportionate policing in communities feed into black mortality rates, so BLM talking about these issues will inevitably fight black/black crime. The synthesis of community outreach and civil disobedience solves black death -- empirically proven. 4. If BLM doesn't talk about police brutality towards black people, who will? This is a big issue, and it needs to be confronted. 5. I don't like eggs.