Psst, you can't use the link you did to disprove this claim, because they were almost entirely using arrests for marijuana possession (which is not a violent crime).

(Aside--police will often try to get someone who they "know is trouble" on any charge they can make stick in order to keep them off the streets for longer; this can make comparatively minor offenses like marijuana possession difficult to use for anything important, because it's not reporting on how people view that offense.)

Instead, you need to use numbers for violent crime, e.g. from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2

You also need some ground truth for what the real rates are, which that table doesn't show. Unfortunately, for violent crimes in general, it's hard to know what the base rates are, but for murder and "non-negligent manslaughter", it's serious enough to get a lot of attention so there we have a pretty good idea: roughly 30% of murders go unsolved (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/track-solved-murder-rates-united-states-n1271928), and it's less likely to be solved if the victim is black (40% unsolved, vs. 20% for whites).

There's just no way to get a 3.7x disparity in arrests for murder when 70% of murders are solved.

Note that the rate for blacks being arrested for murder is 5x higher than for whites in that violent crime table. Even if every unsolved murder is committed by a white person (contrary to expectation since within-race murder rates are high compared to cross-race murder rates), with 10k arrests and assuming that every single arrest results in conviction (not that high) that only is 14k total murders, leaving the "real" rate at 9k...whereupon the rates are still 2.8x higher for blacks. But, again, that is assuming the totally preposterous idea that every unsolved murder is a white murderer. I suppose if you decide that half of the murders pinned on blacks are actually not just wrongful convictions but actually the perpetrator was white, AND every unsolved murder was committed by a white person, then the numbers finally even out. But this is getting quite ludicrous.

I'm not saying that there's no bias in policing and sentencing--it's there and well-documented. It just isn't remotely enough to explain the murder numbers, and very likely not enough to explain the violent crime numbers.

The problem with the claim of higher levels of violence isn't that it's untrue--at least not with murder where it's easy to check--but that to understand it requires context.

The context is poverty and income inequality. The latter especially seems a good predictor of violence, at least, as low-status men vie (violently) for standing under conditions where falling to even lower status is intolerable: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates

Indeed, if we were to believe that there were not substantially higher rates of violent crime committed by black people that white, we would either have to believe that blacks do not suffer more from poverty and income disparity than do whites (demonstrably completely wrong and easily traced back to racism of various sorts), or that black people are, anomalously, remarkably angelic despite expectations for how these conditions usually affect people (a racially bigoted assumption against non-black people).

So, anyway, though I haven't got at my fingertips the numbers for violent crime overall, on the basis of the murder numbers, I'd advise you that this isn't the fight you want to be fighting--it's almost surely wrong, so you'll lose the fight, and the fight misses the point.

The point is that a history of slavery and racism has left a lot of people of one race in poor conditions, and, unsurprisingly, they act accordingly. The point is to fix the conditions.