Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your mutterings about the media and slaves etc. is just bizarre.
These stats have been around since wayyyy before the Obama admin.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true. This makes two times you've chimed in on the apparent availability of stats to prove your case.....yet neither time have you provided those stats.
Show us the numbers that validate that black people are charged with hate crimes more than any other race.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true. This makes two times you've chimed in on the apparent availability of stats to prove your case.....yet neither time have you provided those stats.
Show us the numbers that validate that black people are charged with hate crimes more than any other race.
Well, Bulldog dad already posted the hate crime #'s from 2011.
I figured any chimp with a computer could go to wiki and pull up the 2010 census information and then perform division.
The rate per 1million whites is 15.
The rate per 1million blacks is 30.
The hate crime rate for blacks is double that of whites.
If the point is purely the mathematics, then ok. But if the point is to somehow theorize that black people are subjected to harsher penalties, such as hate crime charges, than white people, you've got a long way to go to prove that.
Interesting. I read one article that said the absolute number of anti-white hate crimes were the largest. I was wondering why this isn't a major media story. So I poked around more. Then I stumbled on something I hadn't thought about.Anti-gay hate crimes. There surely are far more white gays than African-American gays. Their skin color is not why they are hated, but if you just lump them in the white numbers for hate-crimes, now it becomes more apparent why the absolute numbers for whites could be higher. The right wing isn't going to EMPHASIZE this fact since I don't think they are particularly pro-gay-rights. They might even find a reason to CHEER when some gay gets attacked. But it does help provide them with numbers that support the idea that whites have become the leading victims. Hate crimes down in 2011, but anti-gay violence is up, FBI says - Los Angeles Times
If the point is purely the mathematics, then ok. But if the point is to somehow theorize that black people are subjected to harsher penalties, such as hate crime charges, than white people, you've got a long way to go to prove that.
That was the point. A poster commented how shocking this story was since black people NEVER get charged with hate crimes (something numerous conservative posters have stated countless times on this board).
Mathdude and I simply pointed out the statistics show otherwise - rather than never, black people are very often charged with hate crimes. In fact, relative to population, for every 1 white person charged with a hate crime, 2 black people are charged with hate crimes.
That was the point. A poster commented how shocking this story was since black people NEVER get charged with hate crimes (something numerous conservative posters have stated countless times on this board).
Mathdude and I simply pointed out the statistics show otherwise - rather than never, black people are very often charged with hate crimes. In fact, relative to population, for every 1 white person charged with a hate crime, 2 black people are charged with hate crimes.
Educate me. How do the prosecutors hand "hate" on the crime charge?
Hate crime laws are insane. A school yard taunt is now the basis for enhanced punishment? Liberal insanity continues unabated.
I agree with this.
Even though I do feel the boy who caused the injury should be punished, I don't think it is necessary to call it a "hate crime."
This is just as silly as the little boy who kissed a girl's hand being labeled as a "sexual harasser."
And FWIW, all moms say that their kid is a good kid until something like this happens. And he is only 13 so he probably is a good kid and has never been in trouble before. Most 13 year olds are good kids.
Even though I do feel the boy who caused the injury should be punished, I don't think it is necessary to call it a "hate crime."
This is just as silly as the little boy who kissed a girl's hand being labeled as a "sexual harasser."
And FWIW, all moms say that their kid is a good kid until something like this happens. And he is only 13 so he probably is a good kid and has never been in trouble before. Most 13 year olds are good kids.
Surely these things can be addressed in social services. Law enforcement invokes the whole array of constitutional protections. Actual injury should be verified before we start handing out these protections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
