No, Donald Trump, most whites are not murdered by blacks

Days after a racist comment by Donald Trump aimed at Marco Rubio, the Donald has topped himself by tweeting a very racially tinged graphic that claims that 81% of white people who are murdered are killed by blacks.

Amazingly, he hasn’t deleted it. Yet…


Trump is flat out lying here.

According to official statistics from the FBI as reported by the Washington Post, it’s the exact opposite. When white people are murdered, it’s overwhelming by the hand of other white people. 82% to be exact.


Capture2Worse yet, Trump retweeted the bogus information from a neo-Nazi white supremacist who admires Hitler and has a modified swastika as his Twitter logo.

Why is Donald Trump injecting race politics into his campaign? And why is he telling his supporters that most white people are killed by black people? This is textbook racism.

How on earth do people believe that this man has the temperament to be president?

I would expect to hear this kind of race propaganda at a KKK gathering from Billy Bob to a fellow redneck. “Ya know these black folk are doin’ most of the killin’ of our white brothers!”

I wouldn’t expect to hear it from a man running to be president of the United States.

Author: Nick

I was born and raised in Ohio. After growing up in the Columbus area, I moved to Cleveland to study at Case Western Reserve University, and have lived in Northeast Ohio ever since. I live in Wellington with my wife and son. I work in the private sector and have never worked in the political field.

4 thoughts on “No, Donald Trump, most whites are not murdered by blacks”

  1. Nick — who made up your table? I wonder if there aren’t errors in it?

    Reading let to right the the rows add up to 100% as they should. But the columns do not add up to 100%

    For example if the murderer is white then 82.4% of the victims are also white, and 7.6% are black (that makes 90%) so therefore 28% of the victims cannot be “other”, and 54% “unknown” (whatever that means) because then column adds up to 172%. Maybe that should that be 2.8% (other) and 5.4% (unknown) — adding up to 98.6%?

    I think percentages are not a good way to deal with these concepts.– it confusing and it can mask what is going on.

    Also, I am wondering if Trump’s data deals with the city San Francisco not the USA? Maybe his numbers are correct for that area? (note citation for his chart).

    The point Trump is undoubtedly trying to capture is African-Americans make up only 13% of the US population yet they commit a much higher percentage of the violent crime. For example, based on 2008 FBI statistics African-Americans committed 52% of the murders in the country. If you consider all violent crime (e.g., include rape and armed robbery) African-Americans (mostly young males) are responsible for an even higher percentage of these violent crimes.

    One study claimed that levels of violent crime in deprived neighbourhoods in Cleveland were reduced in proportion to reductions in poverty in both black and white areas, suggesting poverty, not race, is the biggest factor. (Lance.Hannon Journal of Poverty).

    But other studies suggest some black communities, for whatever reason, have developed cultural values that are more tolerant of crime and violence.(e.g., T.L. McNulty, Criminology:, 39 (2) 467-496 (2001).

    To point out correct crime statistics is not racist – – it is being factual. But to charge things that are actually not true is either careless or possibly racist.

    That said I have no idea why Trump brings this up.

    I do think it is good to point out that illegals immigrants in this country, people who should not be here, have killed thousands of US citizens — some 7,000 (since 2010 I think).

    But why the Trump people want to inflame the African-Americans and make sure that they turn out for Hillary on election night is insane?

    1. Bernie,

      I think Nick’s table is breaking down the race of the murderer for each of the victim’s races. It is not intended to break down the race of the victim by percent. In other words, for black victims, for example, the murderer is white 7.6% of the time, black 90% of the time, etc. But we do not know what % of the victims are of a given race. So the columns do not need to add up to 100%. If 90% of all murderers were Race X, regardless of the race of the victims, then the column under Race X would be 90% in every row.

      Nick, maybe you could post a link to your source data (always a good idea I think).

      You do make a good point, though, that we do not know the exact source of Trump’s data.

      In any case, his tweet seems foolish at best, especially given the neo-Nazi source.

      1. Perhaps you have a point Bryan I can see what you are suggesting but all the more reason to present that data as numbers not percentages?

        As I think more about it. It seems to me that “Trump’s table” is internally consistent albeit counter intuitive regardless of what part of the country its data was actually take from?

        For example in “his” table of all murdered black persons 1% are killed by police, 2% by a white persons and 97% by another black person. That adds up to 100%. This means that no black person (0%) was killed by a Hispanic or Asian person in 2015. Really?

        So if even if the data are from San Fran as I suggested earlier that would be a pretty surprising thing to find out?

Comments are closed.