...it has to be. I'm surprised I never considered this until now.
For most entry-level redpillers, first thing you learn is 13% of the population (niggers) commits over 50% of all violent crime.
Then at some point, you learn it's more like 5-7%, specifically 18-30 year old nigger bucks that commit over 50% of all violent crime.
But that 50% comes from official records. With officially confirmed suspooks, aperests, coonvictions and other data.
Not all crimes are reported. Crimes don't even always generate a police report. Hell, even outstanding suspects go "unconfirmed." How many times have we seen CCTV footage of some nigger jacking an old lady, never getting caught and the police bulletin we see is just "MALE, UNKNOWN AGE, UNKNOWN RACE, WEARING DARK CLOTHING"?
And then there's our kiked court systems. How many cases get dropped? How many are reduced? I've personally seen cases of armed robbery beaten down to just trespassing (and therefore non-violent guys!) and the nigger goes off with a slap on the wrist.
So that problematic 5-7% -- what percentage of violent crime are they really responsible for? My guess is at least 80%, which is a mind-boggling number, but one I think is wholly realistic (and accurate).
view the rest of the comments →
[–] slwsnowman40 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yes, but that 80% is advanced red pill, most can't handle 13-50 or the 2-40 numbers.
[–] Splooge [S] ago
Very interesting take. Could you please elaborate on what exactly makes these figures difficult to handle?
[–] slwsnowman40 ago
You've already laid out their real influence on crime, all crime numbers are lower as they only become statistics when reported, tried and convicted. That's why I said it is an advanced red pill, because the actual crime stats are worse when you add in cold cases of all types. How many convictions has there been for all the shooting and murders in Chicongo?