Discussion
  • Read More
    Uncle RemusMonique Judge
    11/14/17 1:29am

    Sessions:

    “The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that individuals can live without fear of being a victim of violent crime based on who they are, what they believe, or how they worship.”

    I don’t believe him, because:

    Also Sessions

    • Voted against the Violence Against Women Act. (Source)

    Also Sessions

    “I do share your concern that these investigations and consent decrees have the, can turn bad. They can reduce morale of the police officers,” Sessions said. “They can push back against being out on the street in a proactive way. You know New York has proven community-based policing, this CompStat plan, the broken windows, where you’re actually arresting even people for smaller crimes — those small crimes turn into violence and death and shootings if police aren’t out there.”

    “So every place these decrees, and as you’ve mentioned some of these investigations have gone forward, we’ve seen too often big crime increases,” Sessions continued. “I mean big crime increases. Murder doubling and things of that nature. It’s just, we’ve got to be careful, protect people’s Civil Rights. We can’t have police officers abusing their power. We will not have that. But there are lawful approved, constitutional policies that places — New York is — the murder rate is well below a lot of these other cities that aren’t following these tactics.”

    Also Sessions

    • Referred to the Voting Rights Act, a law that simply demands that every American’s right to vote is protected, as a piece of “intrusive legislation.” (Source)
    • Once prosecuted civil rights activists for registering black voters. (Source)
    • Allegedly labeled the ACLU and NAACP “un-American” groups who “forced civil rights down the throats of people.” (Source)
    • Argued that stop-and-frisk programs are Constitutional, saying that “it’s all about how that is done.” (Source)
    Reply
  • Read More
    BadOmbreMonique Judge
    11/14/17 1:18am
    • 46.3 percent were White.
    • 26.1 percent were Black or African American.
    Your browser does not support HTML5 video tag.Click here to view original GIF
    Reply
    • Read More
      Ugh.BadOmbre
      11/14/17 10:52am

      The “Asian” in the grays sure does love him some hott taeks.

      Reply
  • Read More
    Rooo sez BISH PLZMonique Judge
    11/14/17 2:55am

    https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/06/26/417675859/writer-roxane-gay-why-i-cant-forgive-dylann-roof

    Reply
    • Read More
      kindergoth sissygeekRooo sez BISH PLZ
      11/14/17 6:37am

      The very notion of being asked whether to forgive Dylann Roof. Is this not infuriating? Or merely “same shit, another day”?

      Reply
  • Read More
    AutoBox, Roll Out!Monique Judge
    11/14/17 5:37am

    Technically, white people make up a plurality, not a majority, of hate crime perpetrators.

    Reply
  • Read More
    DCDougMonique Judge
    11/14/17 6:42am
    • 18.1 percent were of unknown race or ethnicity.

    In other words, the box wasn’t checked off (but the guy was probably white).

    Also guess what report won’t get funded for the next 3 years?

    Reply
  • Read More
    send_in_the_dronesMonique Judge
    11/14/17 3:13am

    It’s an unreliable report and I expect the truth is much worse.

    There’s an obvious biased reporting problem as whites are 77% of the population and blacks are 13%. Presuming that most of the incidents are white-vs-black or black-vs-white, a factor the report doesn’t clarify as these percentages aren’t 100%, 46.3/77 (0.6) vs 26.1/13 (2.0); it looks like the smaller group has individuals who are 3X more active.

    I believe this to be unlikely.

    The reason for being unreliable is that hate crime reporting isn’t mandatory and groups with superior representation (more lawyers, better sub-group organizations, et al) will dominate the reporting, while those who are disenfranchised will have hate-crimes against them under reported or be dismissed.

    Looking at the by-age category, for example, the stats match the population better; 85% are committed by those over 18. The US population has 24% under 18, but about half of those are rather young to be doing hate crimes, so estimate instead that about 12% could; making a guess, the corrected percentage of people old enough to commit a hate-crime and that is also over 18 is closer to 88%, a close match for the 85% in the report. (It’s too late for a calculator.)

    Given that the FBI is looking at only around 6,000 reports and DoJ estimated around 260,000 hate crimes occur annually, even the slightest bias will produce extreme skew to the results. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4614 “Hate Crime Victimization, 2003-2011" It’s been a long time since that report was written and I doubt the Trump administration will be looking to update it.

    Reply
  • Read More
    TorslinMonique Judge
    11/14/17 3:03am

    I feel like you have buried the lead. The report if anything shows a racial bias against black people when it comes to assigning something a hate crime. 46 percent is WAY too low for white people who are only 63 percent of the population. Actually 73 percent since this seems to be counting latinx people as white too! Hate crimes are really a punching down thing more often than not so it seems crazy that number is so low.

    Reply
  • Read More
    Meyer Lansky SqarrsMonique Judge
    11/14/17 1:42am

    Surprise.

    Reply
    • Read More
      TorslinMeyer Lansky Sqarrs
      11/14/17 3:07am

      It is though, it should be higher. That it is so low shows disproportionate applying of hate crime laws to black people. That 46 percent is way less than the 63 percent white people take up and you know white people have to be committing more hate crimes per person. Plus that 46 percent seems to be including latinx people.

      The numbers don’t add up.

      Reply