Some mix'n'match statistics there, I think.
The likelihood that a black person in London will kill versus the likelihood a person in Glasgow will be killed? Does the 600, 000 include people who live elsewhere but work in Glasgow? Are the Londoners black-African, black-Caribbean, Asian, mixed ethnicity or some combination?
Common denominators: lack of education (sickness or injury, home schooled, excluded, learning disability, sensory impairment, ...?), "domestic abuse relationships" (as victims, perpetrators, children of either ...?), "ultimately poverty" (is poverty the ultimate determinant as greatest, least, generic to all other factors?). Not very clear definition of concepts, is it?
Any statistics or mathematical analyses are only as good as the raw material. Comparing likelihood of killing with being killed, or comparing figures without a clear idea as to what they mean, is worthless. You might have a valid point, but you are not offering evidence in support. If you thought Akala's case was so strong, why weaken it with your own seemingly random thoughts?