So I went looking.. haven't found the official numbers yet but I did find this tidbit 'splainin' why there ain't a problem of black on white crime..
well at least the guy does more than stand there screaming "RACIST!"
You see the difference can be easily explained (if you're intelligent like the guy who typed in all this stuff) by "encounter rates."
Essentially it is the simple fact that blacks are far more likely to encounter a white than whites are likely to encounter a black.
So yes the stats show greater black-on-white crime than white-on-black crime but far less than it would be if crime was race based. He explains his math and then says:
"In other words, given general offending rates which are indeed higher for blacks than whites (but which still indicate that the overwhelming majority of blacks are not violent criminal offenders), and given the likelihood of interracial encounters between whites and blacks (and which are especially rare for whites encountering blacks), the rates of black-on-white interracial crime are either pretty much exactly what would be expected without any racial targeting whatsoever, or they are even lower than random chance would predict."
(BTW nowhere in ordinary discourse about the subject has it been argued that the overwhelming majority of blacks are violent criminal offenders.)
google a string of characters from the quote to find the site; e.g., "offending rates which are indeed higher for blacks than whites". I had the link ready than I noticed that it was not from a Monty Python Flying Circus skit. But you can find it with the search.
I wondered something along those lines, myself. If you were to cut out (pick a number) 10? 20? areas in the country, what would crime look like in the the rest of the country? I'm thinking East St. Louis, Compton, All of Detroit and DC, and so on.
How much is the nationwide result skewed by a few dozen square miles of urban blight?