Would it help to think about the ideas behind "red herring" and "straw man"? The straw man is an effigy or a likeness of something but is not the thing itself. This fallacy happens when a person claims that a position A is suggesting X and Y claims, when in fact it is not. The person then goes on the 'refute' X and Y in order to refute position A. So you might think of this as a direct attack on something which does not exist. The Red Herring is a smelly fish which might distract a dog and lead it off in the wrong direction. Here the fallacy is created by tossing out some side issues which are not relevant to the main argument. More on reddit.com

A red herring is an unrelated or irrelevant topic in an argument that distracts someone from the actual argument. A straw man, on the other hand, is when someone distorts an argument into a new, twisted version that's easier to argue against. So let's say two people are debating whether or not evolution is a valid theory: Straw Man: "So you're saying I evolved from a monkey? Then how come I don't throw feces and climb trees?" Evolution doesn't make that claim, but by claiming that it does, the arguer is trying to beat down a much easier argument. Red Herring: "So you believe in evolution? I'll bet your parents would be disappointed in you." The arguer is distracting from the issue by bringing his opponent's parents into this - they have no impact on whether or not the theory is correct. More on reddit.com

This is all over the place.  Data cannot be a fallacy. If there is a fallacy, it could only be in how the data is used to support an argument.    To pursue the fragments you've offered as examples: *  black people are the most major contributors to American crime per capita, and they are not the largest contributors in absolute terms. This is just data, you could use either in a fallacious way. * sure, if you could wave a wand and end all white crime, that'd be better than ending all black crime and bringing up per-capita statistics would be a red herring. That's a weird hypothetical, though. More on reddit.com

Welcome to r/askphilosophy . Please read our rules before commenting and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. More on reddit.com