So question - do all the minority criminals that, according to your stats, are also likely perpetrating these murders look at non-poor white people and say:

"Nah, dat guy's privileged, we shouldn't murder him."

?

I mean, why would richer white people not be victims? If it's a function of actively associating with criminals, that statistically makes sense. If it's independent of that, which you seem to be arguing, (ie, the minorities getting murdered are just as innocent as the Whites statistically, and their arrest record is minor, unrelated, or otherwise incidental and their individual choices are not responsible) then shouldn't Whites suffer a similarly proportional amount of murder?

Hell, if you're going to drag race into this, I'd expect a disproportionate rate of being a murder victim for non-poor white guys. If you're going to pop a cap in someone's ass, might as well be a cracker, right? More left in the wallet to rob anyway.

I mean, you can throw up stats all you want about associating minorities, poverty, and crime, and imply they're all victims of circumstance. But nobody is forced to be a criminal. If 50% of young men have arrest records by 23, that's because 50% of young men are committing crimes by that age. That's a cultural issue, and it's a big problem. But it's only an explanation, not an absolution. And it doesn't particularly disprove any point I made above. Associate with people more likely to murder - be more likely to get murdered. As I said; if their choices and voluntary associations were incidental, non-poor whites should suffer a proportional amount of victim-hood, because the statistics of disproportionate criminality would then be irrelevant.