That was inappropriate of me to criticize that comment in that way, but it is generally accepted now that characterizing criminality by things like physical attributes, race, etc is not constructive nor wise.
Criminality should be seperated from any factors which are identified and might influence it, for the simple reason that 'criminality' is a social construct that must be subordinate to learning, or it is destructive.
So, for example, you can go to a place where the wealthier and well educated are white, and the poor and less educated are black, and you can say "blacks in this location tend towards crimes, as defined by local laws". But if you generalize and say that the criminality comes from the blackness then you are off base, most educated people would say.
Same with any physical characteristic.
If, for example, you have a person who has seizures, and during those seizures he or she flops against bystanders and injures them, the epileptic has commited assault. But it is jackassery to charge them with assault, unless you refuse to learn, i.e., unless you consider local laws a 'god' rather than a short term step.
edit to add
Now I drop this subject and will not post anymore, absolutely.
