>

Color me shocked that white supremacists don't report all hate crimes.
They don't even report how many people they kill to the fed gov. There is no way in hell they report all.hate crimes >

How many of them even believe hate crimes should be a thing? >

If it weren’t for qualified immunity US cops would do nothing but face hate crime charges. 
Their entire existence at this point is a hate crime against the lower and middle class. >

The lower and middle class don't -really- exist. Those are terms coined by the ruling class to artificially divide up the working class. >

While true in spirit, this is entirely false in practice. The life of a poverty-stricken family is vastly different and more difficult than a middle class one. >

Which is done purposely to divide us up, with the goal of making the luckier part of the working class look at the unlucky part of the working class and go "whew, at least I'm not them" instead of "here, let's all work together" >

You're misunderstanding me. I don't really care about how the middle class feels about happy they are about not being lower class. I am saying in order to actually rise up against our oppressors, the middle class must provide for the lower class when push comes to shove.
When/if a general strike that cripples the economy comes along, the only thing that will unite the lower and middle classes is if the lowest classes are provided for. Someone needs to feed them and their kids if the government shuts off the tap. We will need to be more united than ever before. If the middle class turns around and says "not my problem", you have an even bigger class divide than before, and you will never shake off oppression. The lowest classes will not die to make the middle class slightly better off.
Working together is a two way street. The lowest classes are ready to rise up and take back what's theirs, but the middle class is the key to enabling that for millions. >

Fair. I understand what you're saying and agree. With the caveat that when it comes to solidarity they are and need to be treated as one. We are all the working class. >

No caveat needed, that's absolutely the goal. >

I was under the impression that cops do everything they can not to have paperwork, like not reporting crimes. >

First thing they do is check the victim for warrants so they can just arrest them instead.
It's kind of insane. >

Hey, that's not fair, it's not the first thing they do.
First thing they do is shoot your dog. >

no no, first they punch their spouse. then they shoot your dog. then they try to find a way to arrest you. >

Give them a break, it's a lot of work to both commit the crimes and also report them in detail. >

When you have PTSD from shooting an unarmed suspect who was trying to obey your orders, and you forgot to report it accurately. >

"I would have never said that had I known there was a video." 
-- Actual police officer explaining why he lied about a violent interaction with a civilian. >

Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else noticed?
-Bob Loblaw >

Did you get that off his Law Blog? >

Sure did. BobLoblawsLawBlog .com >

I read the article but am a bit confused - are the police the people who determine if it's a hate crime? Wouldn't that have to be something proved in court? The article itself mentioned that it's difficult to determine the difference between a hate crime and a crime of opportunity, which makes it sound like the cops aren't the ones that determine what is and isn't a hate crime, it's the DA and the courts. >

I don't understand why so many administrations act like it's impossible to determine something is a hate crime.
When a person of one race/religion/sex targets and shoots 5+ people of a different race/religion/sex and has a history of publishing disparaging comments about said people- I think it's safe to label it a hate crime for fucks sake.
Edit: I'm not sure why so many feel the need to give examples of non-obvious hate crimes. The whole point of my comment is we have the exact scenario I described above being labeled as NOT hate crimes. 
If these super obvious examples can't even get correctly labeled, that's the PROBLEM. >

Ok, but let's take a different scenario.
Some guy on the street starts yelling and stabbing a black guy who the stabber says bumped into him.
Is this a hate crime?
Was the stabbing because the victim was black?  Was it because the stabber was unhinged and thought the guy bumped into him?  Was the stabber looking for an excuse to kill a black guy?  Was the victim targeted because he got a job the stabber felt he "deserved?" >

That's obviously not a hate crime. this also is a bad example, 
by definition it isn't a hate crime. If the dude said I hate n* and then started stabbing him for no other potential motivation that would be a hate crime. >

Ah, so it's not a hate crime unless the culprit basically yells "I am targeting X specifically" while doing the crime?  I mean, that makes it easy to prove, but it's perfectly possible for someone to have that motivation and not go yelling it. >

Exactly, but in a court of law the onus is on the prosecution to prove that it was racially motivated beyond a reasonable doubt. Without explicit evidence like that, hate crimes are exceedingly hard to prosecute. 
This is where police have power to sway whether something gets listed as a hate crime. If a witness to a crime includes that the attacker said racial slurs, the police can leave that out of the report because they don’t believe the witness or because they actually want to protect the perpetrator. >

And until there is a massive change in policy and personnel, we never will see a complete picture. The police are one of the most corrupt organizations in the country, incompetent training and being told that shooting first is perfectly acceptable while practically indoctrinating its members into the most blatant stereotyping hate groups known. Their training is beyond subpar as it takes less than a year of training to get you in, even the fucking military has longer training requirements and don’t get me started about other countries, they at least have a minimum requirement of 1-3 full years of training and require their officers to do refresher training at least 1-2 times a year. America needs to do better, but as long as the old worthless fucks in charge of our government are only beholden to their corporate backers we will never see change >

That kind of looks like self serving gross negligence by police unions.... >

Why would the police report crimes they perpetrate? >

Well I mean, I would venture a guess that they are not being reported by the people who are committing them. >

Some of those who work forces >

I'm down for robots to take away police jobs. Robocop needs to happen soon. >

Police behave like a gang. That includes not ratting out their white supremacist friends. >

My high school used to have an ex NYPD detective come to give talks and he unironically called them a street gang as if it was a good thing. In retrospect it was pretty tasteless. >

Aside from really small towns with only a handful of cops of the force, they basically are the largest and most dangerous street gang in any given area. >

In other news, the sun rises in the morning. >

Don't narc on your buddies! >

This is what happens when law enforcement doesnt have independent oversight.
And any time it's suggested, they lose their minds. There's a reason for that
Police aren't here to serve us. They've been corrupt since the start. >

Wow it's almost like they want to cover up the crimes. >

What?!? Armed, racist gang doesn’t report hate crimes accurately?!? >

they don't report on themselves and others in blue or blue adjacent.  Here is how I see it is bad as it ever was maybe even worst. >

Well, yeah. Criminals tend not to document and report their crimes. >

That’s because they’re committing them >

In the last couple of years, we have seen that the police do actively choose what they enforce, despite all the bullshit about how they don’t make the laws.
I’m talking about mask mandates, more recently, some of these assault rifle bands in some states, and of course the way black people are more likely to be targeted for marijuana possession. >

No shit Sherlock! It's been a long time I knew the cops were unaccounted for. They have too much power to care. >

It should be the district attorneys who report it, shouldn't it? >

To be fair, they have rights against self incrimination. >

Of course not. They're blatantly complicit. >

I mean, are they going to report the crimes that they are the ones committing? >

Well yea. At least 1/10 hate crimes has to be commit by the police and no argument could convince me otherwise. >

they expect police to tell on themselves? >

They’re also killing 25-30 dogs a day, but any of the police subreddit will tell you it’s not actually a problem. >

Why would the police narc on themselves? >

"Also, we aren't really listening."
-The DOJ- >

why would they want to tattle on their friends? >

Snitches get stitches. >

Because they commit the most of them >

This is hardly surprising, given that a lot of police departments have been infiltrated by violent white supremacist gangs, among the major perpetrators of hate crimes. >

Didn’t we defund them?!?! >

Internal crimes, hate crimes, cover-ups, >

Are we talking about the hate crimes the police are committing, or just hate crimes in general. You're going to have to be more specific when discussing the Pinkerton Patrol. >

Cause the cops like to make it appear that their sisters and cousins are decent folk. Reporting that shit is revealing and bubble bursting >

What's their incentive to report? >

Self reporting is not something the police are fond of doing. >

Why would they? It’s not in their benefit. They also have no legal obligation to protect citizens. Yet, citizens are obligated and compelled to pay taxes that pay for their salary and equipment. The logic is as sound as someone disputing the chat logs with Chris Hansen. >

This doesn't make any sense. Cops aren't even the ones that even charge crimes, that's the DAs office and all charges and convictions are public record. >

Crime statistics are about more than prosecutions and convictions, and the police departments are the ones with the most data to offer here.
There are tens of thousands of police departments across the US, and many are still on paper. It's just not practical to try and collect all of this data by hand. In addition, different states or localities are going to apply different definition for things like hate crimes. So the data is also just poor quality even before you get to non-cooperation.
Where communities don't want to cooperate with the DOJ or FBI, that doesn't just extend to the police departments. Local judges also will often refuse to cooperate.
A very similar problem exists for federal gun background checks. Often investigators have to contact police or judicial systems in communities where the person trying to buy a gun lives or lived in order to work out whether they have any disqualifying criminal convictions, or chase down an explanation for a conviction they know about (not all convictions are disqualifying). Many police departments and judges will just refuse to cooperate with these (or "try back Thursday"). Since the law requires greenlighting gun purchases within 72 hours unless derogatory information is found, a refusal to cooperate means somebody gets a gun that probably shouldn't have one.
ETA: I see someone trying to respond about hospital statistics but I can't see the response for some reason. It's also important to separate statistics from an accounting of hate crimes. You can get useful data even if not everyone is cooperating with you provided you can work out what your missing data probably looks like given the data you do have. This lets you report on trends. So if your goal is statistics, it's not a big deal that some law enforcement and hospitals can't easily get data to you. But if your goal is accounting, then you need to. Hospitals have specialized ways of reporting suspected infectious disease outbreaks and that sort of thing. We just don't have anything similar for law enforcement. >

That’s cause police also commit hate crimes. >

The people commiting hate crimes aren’t reporting them? >

It’s because the police are committing most of them. >

Mostly those that burn crosses are leading those who run forces? Hold all the Bastards accountable. >

In the case of hate crimes in small communities the police simply don't want to report on their friends and family (or themselves). >

I called my city police on a hate crime incident. He told me he would not document this or write it ina report. Fugg Richardson Police Texas >

Personal experience with police not reporting a hate crime (arson of a minority owned business) despite the presence of hate speech graffiti .. police said “no proof” .. >

Prolly cause snitches get stitches. Good cops get the short end of the stick all the time.
It’s not a bad apple, it’s a rotten tree on poisoned soil. >

Maybe because cops dont report crimes cops do. >

There have been documentaries made regarding the pervasive plot by what is now known as alt-right groups to clean up their acts and begin to infiltrate law enforcement organizations starting in the 90s. That's why we're now seeing so many at all levels of enforcement.  
Not that law enforcement wasn't already a cesspool before that. Many point to "efficiency" made to policing as a point of divergence from serving the public to serving capital. Once you removed beat cops from the actual communities they served, it's harder for the police to empathize with those they are policing. >

So they’re literally too fucking lazy to learn and use new software for reporting. >

Why do their jobs, when they could not do their jobs instead, and get paid overtime anyway?
Those doughnuts aren't going to eat themselves, you know? >

I am sure there is a thousand reasons why but why doesn't the government get data from the NCIC system?  It lists all offenders and what they were arrested with. >

I don’t get how they don’t realize that everybody is armed these days, and there is a breaking point. Whatever arms exist, also exist in black communities all over the country. I go to a range in chicago suburbs where all black people turn up, some with their families. A lot of working class families have n ver NOT been armed because the shitstym seldom guarantees our security. We know the recklessness of the criminal elements. But don’t understand the restraint of armed working class people when they experience hates crimes from the general population and the police. We need to avoid a great tragedy. We need to treat all communities with respect. When we don’t really bad things can and will happen. The shooting of Philando Castile, A licensed gun owner by the police send a shock through a lot of black CC license holders. It’s not about the race of the policemen, it’s about the abuse the police in general are engaged in. They will one day abuse the wrong household or licensed black 2A person and get really back results. >

I’m am confusion, the police wouldn’t be the ones to determine if a crime was a hate crime. The police submit their report/findings for the DA’s office to make that final determination. >

Policing is a failed institution. I’ll teach my children to never speak to them. >

Lmao. As if the cops were gonna self report. >

Reporting your coworkers is hard and risks an increase of on the job injury/death >

Why would police report their own crimes to the government? >

Thats because they're committing them >

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes >

Federal law enforcement agencies >

Quis custodiet egestas agencies foederati >

Congressional oversight committees >

Qui Concilii inspectionem observat >

The voters >

Quis suffragii tuetur >

*pulls out wheelocks latin >

“Some of those who work forces, are the same who burn crosses.” >

Only thing RATM got wrong was "some of those that work forces..." >

Maybe it's because ahem "Those that work forces are the same that burn crosses" >

So the police aren't reporting on themselves or thier friends and family? Color me shocked. >

The police officers probably don't want to report themselves to the feds. >

You can't expect them to tell on themselves >

Or they're just not as prevalent as some people would like them to be.  It would loose their false narrative that everyone is racist. >

It's "lose."
The only thing "loose" here is your mask, which is slipping. >

“Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses.” >

Some of those that work forces… >

are the same that burn crosses! >

When you’re the one doing hate crimes you’re disincentivized to report yourself. >

No surprise here. My buddy lost his badge for being too honest. >

Likely reasons;

They know the individuals committing the hate crimes.
They are the individuals committing the hate crimes.
They agree with the crimes/could care less about the victims. >


Qualified immunity protects them from the justice department for not complying. >

They’re too busy committing hate crimes in their off time and running across their buddies doing the same to report em. >

Sometimes I feel like the rest of America is slowly coming to terms with the fact that the corruption of the LA police departments that led to the rioting in the early 1990s wasn't exclusive to Los Angeles and that the vast majority of Police Departments all across the country are equally corrupt. >

Some of those that work forces... >

Abolish police unions. >

The police lobby in MN was against a law that would have prevented cops from being in extremist groups like the KKK or Proud Boys.  The biggest self report I’ve ever seen. >

This is why statistics are only a small part of the conversation about racism. >

I'm just here to upvote all the comments about some of those who run forces. >

Some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses. -RATM