'It's so pervasive.' California hate crimes soared 20% in 2022, report shows (Los Angeles: lawyer, living)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Not sure what your obsession with "lol" is all about today but ok…

No ‘obsession’ … I was referring to the acronym being tagged onto comments posted by another contributor who climbed onto your bandwagon immediately following your posts.

Originally Posted by joosoon

… But thank you for telling the forum that you define critical thinking as arrogance. Got anything that disputes the facts of the OAG report I pointed out?

First off: *critical thinking* certainly CAN be ‘arrogant’, depending on how it is presented and applied to any issue, regardless of truth.

Secondly: I wasn’t referring to any *critical thinking* from you as being ‘arrogant’ … I was referring to your concluding edit opinion AFTER your analysis that the issue and reporting amount to a “nothingburger”.

I actually was interested reading your analysis … and thought your added comment “… That's 282 too many …” was somewhat graciously placed … despite you following with “… but it's not nearly as bleak and misleading as a 20% increase …” which was your analytical conclusion but one not truly knowable (read below).

Thirdly: neither the “facts” of either the OAG report, or your analysis, are conclusive proof of how much change there has been in actual hate crimes. The OAG simply represents reporting and charging. And the LA Times reports just that. No implications of nefariousness of messaging really fit as you and others here seem to want to ridicule.

Truth is: neither over-reporting nor underreporting of underlying realities of such events can be actually proven or quantified. Nor are you / we readers in a position to know the contexts or circumstances of the legal investigations or charging decisions. Thus, frankly, your analytical conclusions are really also speculative. But of course feel free to speculate away.

So, since you asked: it’s your manner of assuming your analyses to be superior to others’ professional reporting (such as the LA Times), and your levying dismissive conclusions that I found cavalier.

ALL credible research and reporting of contemporary hate crime events support that the problem is once again on an upward trend line in recent decades. Sure, it’s impossible to accurately quantify. Whether the difference is actually higher or unchanged one year over another is not really the nut. In my opinion, treating the issue dismissively misses the significance.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Thirdly: neither the “facts” of either the OAG report, or your analysis, are conclusive proof of how much change there has been in actual hate crimes. The OAG simply represents reporting and charging. And the LA Times reports just that. No implications of nefariousness of messaging really fit as you and others here seem to want to ridicule.

The report also represents convictions, why don't you suppose the LAT reported on that data?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

This thread is a good example of why it's important to read actual reports rather than rely on a blurb in the media…

Originally Posted by joosoon

Not sure what your obsession with "lol" is all about today but ok.

But thank you for telling the forum that you define critical thinking as arrogance. Got anything that disputes the facts of the OAG report I pointed out?

I am separately going to address, with one more comment I think apropos to how joosoon launched his commentary, another point I find a bit foolish: in assuming that readers - any readers, anywhere, reading anything - should “read actual reports rather than rely on a blurb in the media.”

It IS a nice concept though.

What amuses me a bit is the idea that there’s any basis for such an expectation. Reality is, the percentage of people, anywhere, who - have ever or will ever take the time / have the interest and motivation / or capability to - analytically parse their way through nuanced issues - certainly ranks as minuscule.

Media reporting may be guilty at times - often, even - typically, even - of omissions … a lack of in-depth analyses. But readers won’t / can’t / don’t have time - to focus their intellects on the plethora of issues competing for our attention in today’s world.

So we all suffer with sound-bytes and synopses in trying to be at least superficially informed … yep.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

The report also represents convictions, why don't you suppose the LAT reported on that data?

Do you think the Times had a hidden agenda?

In any case, what I wrote previously holds true: the number of convictions aren’t certain proof of rate of events. Over reporting. Underreporting. Lack of confidence in evidence and or prosecutorial positioning. It’s quantifiably unknowable.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Do you think the Times had a hidden agenda?

In any case, what I wrote previously holds true: the number of convictions aren’t certain proof of rate of events. Over reporting. Underreporting. Lack of confidence in evidence and or prosecutorial positioning. It’s quantifiably unknowable.

Perhaps they do, no idea. But don't you think that's a relevant and important data point that should have at least been mentioned?

The same could be said about reported incidents.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

Perhaps they do, no idea. But don't you think that's a relevant and important data point that should have at least been mentioned?

The same could be said about reported incidents.

*shrug* Where is the line to draw at how much of any data is included in any synopsis reporting. The article wasn’t an ‘investigative’ effort.

Most media is superficial. Who knew? Eh?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

*shrug* Where is the line to draw at how much of any data is included in any synopsis reporting. The article wasn’t an ‘investigative’ effort.

Most media is superficial. Who knew? Eh?

Sure but you have to wonder why they didn't report that. It's good to question things ya know....

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by stablegenius

I doubt actual hate crimes are up, despite what the stats show. It's more likely they have recently started to stretch the definition of "hate crime" so that more crimes fit the bill.

§ 422.55 Definition of a Hate Crime – Defines “hate crime” as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation; or because of the person’s association with a California Laws That Prohibit Hate Crimes and/or Provide Enhanced Penalties for Specified Hate-related Acts.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Information Bulletin:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/atta...20Bulletin.pdf

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

Sure but you have to wonder why they didn't report that. It's good to question things ya know....

Sure. Absolutely. And I’ll leave further analysis to you and joosoon for now. I’m still building a little house for someone and analyzing why I ever got myself into this project to begin with Times up for this morning’s social interaction. Putting the nail belt back on.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by Kings Gambit

Yes. Overall crime IS down. Especially violent crime. The only types of crimes that have seen a slight increase other than hate crimes is property crimes (retail and car/parts theft).

I think hate crime is up due to the current political environment and "RIGHT" led silly "culture wars" that seemed to have emboldened those who HATE to be more open and act on those hateful instincts. You know, like when certain people where ridiculously saying Covid is "Chinese made" which caused a HUGE increase of hate crimes towards Asians. Those crime rates will soon be going down when they see people responding to those crimes in such a way that will give them pause on acting out on their hate.

California is too huge of a state with so many different regional areas to say for certain that "California....is this or that", but where I live in Los Angeles County, hate crimes are up primarily due to racist white nationalists and as usual, they are targeting Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Middle Easterners, Jewish people and Muslims. Overall, there were a reported 782 hate crimes in LA County in 2022, still low in terms of the actual population, but high in terms of WTF are people so hateful? Source: https://lacounty.gov/2022/12/07/la-c...s-in-19-years/

Slight increase depends on the location.

Murder rate went up 500% during Covid in my Bay Area city. I heard gunshots in a previously safe area during the pandemic. I had a car completely stolen in 2021 and caught people breaking into my home the same year (with previously no issues for years). Priuses all had their catalytic converters stolen.

Aggressive robberies of stores in nearby SF saw a lot of places being boarded up.

Another guy was beaten nearly to death with a hammer by a drunk with no provocation at 4 pm near me recently. Even more recently a man was attacked with a pickaxe.

I wouldn’t say crime is “down” at all.

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/...fic-is-it/amp/

Violent crime is up in SF. And that’s with the DA’s wildly downgrading felony assaults to misdemeanors.

Hate crimes are up I’m sure along with everything else. And a lot of the people committing these hate crimes are street junkies.