Blue States Lead in Hate Crimes--California The Leader---FBI Stats

The reason why California is what is being reported is due to the fact that there is a higher amount of people reporting and what they are charging people with. While it Is common on the coasts, one should look more beyond just what is reported and actually at the crime and victims as that would be a clearer picture than just one sites reporting and even the FBI site states as much. Many times in the past, since the passing of the hate crime legislation, many times prosecution has been loath to either go after such or tend not to, due to the requirement to say if it is an actual hate crime.

Here are the top 10 states with the highest hate crime.
10: Main 3.91 per 100,000 people.
9: Washington 3.95 per 100,000
8: Nevada 4.15 per 100,000
7: Connecticut 4.17 per 100,000
6: Alabama 4.25 per 100,000
5: Tennessee 4.91 per 100,000
4: Kentucky 5.31 per 100,000
3: North Dakota 5.95 per 100,000
2: Michigan 6.38 per 100,000
1: District of Columbia: 11.39 per 100,000

a reply to: sdcigarpig

How do you know more people are reporting them?

Ambiguous statement below.

many times prosecution has been loath to either go after such or tend not to, due to the requirement to say if it is an actual hate crime.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It doesn't count unless you provide the RATIO per person, or hate crimes/person. This is what a policy analyst does. California has the largest population by far, so you can't just use raw numbers.

-Data manager

Call the FBI, and tell them they are wrong.

Once again, a real analysis uses ratios by population.. That's what you learn as a policy analysis professional, whether talking about income, crime, energy use, etc. You need to deny ignorance in this regard, and heed those who work on such issues.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Are these the same professionals that said Hillary was ahead in all the poles on the day of the election.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Are these the same professionals that said Hillary was ahead in all the poles on the day of the election.

Foolish. And false equivalency. Policy professionals are not the same as election analysts, or pollsters in the same regard. You are continuing to unveil your own ignorance. Furthermore, data analytics on hate crimes is looking at real, current data, not projections. Finally, if you knew anything about data analytics across most fields, what I am saying is research and analysis 101. You know, like "income per capita," etc.

a reply to: seasonal

so now the question is, which is cause and which is effect.

If "blue states" lead the nation in hate crimes, and their politics are a response to this trend, then it sounds like we need to listen harder to what is concerning these people, and stop mocking them for being "liberal". Side note: my uncle, who spent 20 years as a Sgt at Arms i the Cossacks, is a registered Democrat. So was the chapter president, who cofounded the local chapter with my uncle. This stereotype of the "weak liberal" could get you hurt bad and quick if you're not careful

If "blue states" were liberal before the trend, then it could be that liberal policies can create division and intolerance.

I think its important to understand which is the case, if either.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Good point, but as the riots around the country have shown, sometimes talking isn't the right answer.

Should we consider the rioters as liberal or anarchists.

a reply to: seasonal
The coasts have always been slightly more socially progressive than the center of the country. That means states like California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii, on the West coast and the New England States tend to be more in that area, in following and doing such. But the rest of the country tends to be a bit more reserve when it comes to looking at and or charging a person with a hate crime. And based on the current feeds, when it is clearly a hate crime, many are being treated as the lesser crime, rather than the more serious charge.

It is estimated that a good 56% of all verifiable hate crimes go unreported. And of all crimes committed it is estimated a good 55% would fall into such a category, but are either not charged as such or they seek to charge the person with a lesser charge, as many prosecutors are not wanting to, have no understanding of the hate crime law, and how such could and should be prosecuted, or find such to be politically inconvenient.

Hate crime charges are a bit harder to prove in court, and one where it could go either way, or be dismissed on a lack of solid evidence. So many prosecutors tend to avoid this fully and go with the lesser charges, in order to get a conviction and or clear it off of the docket.
This is how the FBI defines Hate Crime: A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

So now you can see that in a court they prosecuting attorney would have to show bias, a history in addition to that of the crime, as part of the reason and intent of the person committing the crime.


Take Dylan Roof, the guy who went into an African American church and shot 9 people. If there was no pictures or past of him showing racist signs or remarks, then the federal government would be hard press to get a conviction on a hate crime against him. But as there is evidence of him showing a racial bias, things like posts on social media, pictures and even paraphinelia in his home, then that can be used to prove that this was not only racially motivated, but done out of hate and malaice as part of his intent.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I think that is a good explanation. Thanks

Bunch of hateful people them liberals are. Now there are stats to prove it.

a reply to: seasonal

Rioters are crminals, not liberals.

Protesters are protesters, not liberals.

Im sure most involved with rioting and protesting don't really have their party card on them.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you think that the crowds in Oregon are conservative, or don't put themselves into the stupid little clubs that we shove each other in?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you think that the crowds in Oregon are conservative, or don't put themselves into the stupid little clubs that we shove each other in?

They probably are, more than likely, conservative.

But it isn't their politics that motivated them to act. It was their sense of duty, along with just being a bit pissed. The same "bit pissed" that gave us 4 years of Trump.

ETA: in fact, i'd bet a good portion voted for Johnson. Libertarians tend to stand in for either party when the time is right.

a reply to: TinfoilTP


Let's see if I can explain statistics and the irresponsible use of numbers to you. Let's say we have two fictitious states: State A and State B. State A has 12 incidents of hate crimes and State B has 4. Which is worse? If you chose either State A or State B dunk your head in the toilet repeatedly and write on your computer screen 'I'm too stupid to be posting on ATS'. Why? because, like the OP, you don't have all the numbers to make that determination.


Now, State A has a population of 10,000 people. Population of State B is 1,000. Now, having this additional information, you can see that even though State B had a lower number of total incidents, hate crimes for State B was over 3 times higher than that that of State A.


This is how easy it is to use numbers to mislead people.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: luthier

Source please

There are literally more citizens on welfare from the red states.

The red states literally take twice the federal funding then blue states.

The red states are literally the poorest per capita states.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

www.google.com...

mises.org...

I don't in anyway denie the fbi records. Only the person drawing a conclusion from raw data.

Lots of things impact crime research.

For instance Saudi Arabia has almost zero rape and sexual assault while Sweden has more than the US.

Pure data would show Saudi Arabia has a much better record with rape even while it would be a total fabrication when compared with Sweden.

a reply to: seasonal

It has always been like that. Long before the entire gay marriage equality, this is what was known and even admitted to by a judge. If a gay person was on the west coast or the east coast and was suing on the grounds of discrimination or a false imprisonment, they would walk away with a large settlement. But in the middle of the country, the chances that such would happen would be far and few between, even with over whelming evidence, as the jury and local states would not allow it.

And it is a fact that the middle of the country, along with the bible belt is loath to do any social changes, fearing such and using every excuse to keep things the way they are, rather than change. This was seen clearly with the raise of various laws to try to preserve something that did not need to be, such as freedom of Religion, and to protect religious institutions, even though there was federal laws that stated such, in short allowing for people to state such, and discriminate while holding up a bible.

But beyond that, if you look at the source use, Britebart, the creator and main person Steve Bannon, stated that he was using it for the Alt right, which would include those who are known racists, kkk, and white nationalist. Combined with the raise of violence on both sides, those who are against Trump, rioting egged on by the Pro Trump supporters, doing things like painting swatiska's and making racist statements and threats against minorities, yet authorities won't go after such as a hate crime, even though the evidence is clearly there.

The statement is not ambiguous, it is a matter of fact. How does one prove intent? If there is no background or anything to point that a person is or is not against a group, how does one prove that the intent it there to support such a claim as it being a hate crime? That is part of the problem with the law.

it's where the most rampant of ivory tower dwellers huddle together to treat their affluenza/affliction.

it's a disease that keeps them from rubbing elbows with us.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

And it is a fact that the middle of the country, along with the bible belt is loath to do any social changes, fearing such and using every excuse to keep things the way they are, rather than change.

That is such a turn off to me.

Stagnant, not evolving, makes me feel dead.

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: TinfoilTP


Let's see if I can explain statistics and the irresponsible use of numbers to you. Let's say we have two fictitious states: State A and State B. State A has 12 incidents of hate crimes and State B has 4. Which is worse? If you chose either State A or State B dunk your head in the toilet repeatedly and write on your computer screen 'I'm too stupid to be posting on ATS'. Why? because, like the OP, you don't have all the numbers to make that determination.


Now, State A has a population of 10,000 people. Population of State B is 1,000. Now, having this additional information, you can see that even though State B had a lower number of total incidents, hate crimes for State B was over 3 times higher than that that of State A.


This is how easy it is to use numbers to mislead people.

No, if State A is Blue, then it has more hateful liberals which means it has more hate crimes that happen.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: seasonal

I live in So California in an area of all different races,I have yet to see anything close to a race war,only wars are gang wars,and most of the time gangs of same race over drugs no doubt,kind of like that San Bernardino shooting,majority who live in area thought it was fake,I'm wondering who is making up these charts,and these fabricated storys? there is some bad areas,but the true statistics will prove 99% of the time it is one race killing each other,just like white people ,haven't you discovered that the media will embellish any chance it gets? the old man bite dog addage never changes