So much for a black-brown coalition. 
According to the 36-page 2007 Hate Crimes Report (PDF), thugs committed 763 “hate crimes” in 2007 in Los Angeles County, 28 percent higher than last year.
The majority of these crimes was motivated by bias against race/ethnicity and national origin. In “antiblack” crimes, 71 percent of suspects were hispanic; in anti-hispanic crimes, 56 percent of suspects were black. Blacks and hispanics are natural enemies (gang-bangers only?), it seems.
Before I continue, let me say for the record that the idea of a separate category as “hate crime” is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Any crime of violence is a hate crime, regardless of what the perpetrator was thinking or shouting while committing the crime. If a thug hits someone on the head and grabs his wallet, that’s a crime. But silly-law proponents consider it much worse if the thug shouted, “Nigger!” or “Fag!” while hitting the person on the head and grabbing his wallet. Dig?
The report, released by the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission, isn’t getting much coverage in mainstream media. (The LA Times covered it, but it didn’t have much choice, being the “local” paper.) I wonder why. Let’s speculate, shall we?
There’s little money and almost no white-guilt potential in a report that reveals the continued animosity between two so-called oppressed minority groups. Do you agree? According to the report, “white supremacists” accounted for 17 percent of all hate crimes, but the number is too low to be worth milking, apparently. Do you agree?
Do me a favor. Let me know which black radio stations and news outlets mention this report. And if you find a mainstream media story about it, please post the link in comments.
Related posts:
{ 1 trackback }
{ 23 comments }
No Anti-White hate crime breakdown? I’m shocked!!!
Not as dramatic as the others, but the report does include “anti-white” bias. There were 31 anti-white crimes; 44 percent of suspects were Latino and 37 percent were black.
I have no details on this report, but I would bet the overwhelming majority of these crimes are gang-related. True thugs vs. true thugs, who are battling over drugs and turf. Mostly where predominantly inner city black neighborhoods on the west coast are being overcome by a large influx of hispanics.
In my opinion the media has overblown the black and hispanic conflict. In the cities of NY where I live for example, along with the rest of the northeast, blacks and latinos have enjoyed a very long and amicable relationship, and still do. The bulk of the hispanic community here are Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, and we all hang out at the same places, intermingle, date and intermarry. In southern Cali, it’s mainly illegal alien mexican gang members who are starting to outnumber the “bloods, “crips”, etc.
I agree with David.
Well it’s in L.A.. what do you expect?
L.A. is also very high in rates of malfeasance in their Police force.
Violence begets violence.
In breaking news 2 + 2 = 4, the sun rises in the east and people who live in the ghettos close to each other will be more likely to commit crimes against each other. Wow!!!!
You trying to throw more gasoline on that “black vs brown” issue is quite amusing. “Natural enemies”? Can we get real here?
By the way, can we get a pie chart breakdown of the ethnicities of your circle by any chance?? That’s probably way more illuminating than what you posted. I’m real curious to know how many Hispanics you know real well.
I agree that the distinction of hate crime is ridiculous. The punishment for hate crimes is far more severe than a regular crime. So it comes as no surprise that the opportunity to lock these thugs up a little longer for their gang disputes would be fully backed by the courts. The Bloods have beef with the Crips as well as LaRaZa. The difference prosecuting each beef lies in how the DA feels that day. The Bloods and Crips hate each other, should them killing each other be considered a hate crime?
JIM: “people who live in the ghettos close to each other will be more likely to commit crimes against each other”
Exactly, it’s just replacing some of the black on black crime that was already occuring. All due to vicinity, not race. I bet those 17 percent supremacists crimes were strictly race, not drug, gang or robbery related at all, just race.
LaShawn,
Good post, but this just isn’t news. It’s one of the best/worst kept secrets of the last couple of years. It probably gets more play regionally than it does nationally. “Opressed” group on “Oppressed” group crime doesn’t play well in liberal papers. The so-called hate crimes occuring in the L.A. areas and in other parts of the southwest aren’t just because of two groups living too close to each other in the slums. While a lot of the crime is gang perpetrated, there has been a large overtone of ethnic cleansing to much of the crime. There is starting to appear to be an effort to purify neighborhoods to be hispanic only. The fact that this effort is being driven by hispanic gang-members, many that have illegally immigrated from gangs from mexico and south america is disturbing. Less violent “ethnic” cleansing is occuring in other portions of the U.S. as less and less assimilation occurs amongst immigrants. In many places neighborhoods have been ovewhelmed by immigrants that disregard all rules and laws of the community and are often ignored by the local law enforcement. Previous residents will stay and fight as long as they can, but ultimately leave when the local governments turn their back on them.
The idea of Hispanics and Blacks being “natural enemies” is definitely over the top. I’d have to agree with Jim and David. In southern California, the underlying cause of the violence is directly attributable to drug trafficking and gang warfare.
Jim said:
“By the way, can we get a pie chart breakdown of the ethnicities of your circle by any chance?? That’s probably way more illuminating than what you posted. I’m real curious to know how many Hispanics you know real well.”
That would have no bearing whatsoever on what she wrote. In fact, that’s called a logical fallacy. Specifically this would be a circumstantial ad hominem. La Shawn’s circle of friends is irrelevant to the issue at discussion or the points of the argument she is making.
Pardon me, but is there really any reason for concern–much less alarm–over 763 incidents among a population of nearly 10 million people? My word, some families have more “hate” than this in a year within their own household.
This has always been a “PC” type of “crime” with hysterical reactions whenever the % change is up, and serious doubt as to its validity whenever it goes down.
And BIGDODDY, the LAPD is much more professional than you give them credit for. They are just the big target for protests and lawsuits out here. Probably because they are #1 and an easy mark. Their measure of complaints vs citizen contacts is very impressive, compared to any PD in the country.
In my opinion the media has overblown the black and hispanic conflict. In the cities of NY where I live for example, along with the rest of the northeast, blacks and latinos have enjoyed a very long and amicable relationship, and still do. The bulk of the hispanic community here are Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, and we all hang out at the same places, intermingle, date and intermarry.
What’s more disturbing is this interaction, which is repeated in Philly, Baltimore, D.C., and Camden, from what I know, isn’t mentioned by those pushing this angle. The Black vs. Latino gang war is a story but not putting the full context on it is race baiting.
Before I continue, let me say for the record that the idea of a separate category as “hate crime” is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.
When it comes to thugs stealing wallets I certainly agree. However, when a crime is motivated solely by bias I believe that the “hate crime” designation is appropriate.
I have no doubt that this is applied with far too broad a brush, hence my use of the word “solely”, but as with any crime, motive is certainly a factor. This is why killing a police officer is a capital crime in many jurisdictions while killing your neighbor isn’t. Circumstances matter.
I have to disagree Al. We’re not talking about circumstances with hate crimes legislation. We’re talking about thoughts and emotions, which the law has no business regulating in any way.
You have every right to hate anyone or anything in the world you like. And if you act on that hatred in a way that runs afoul of another’s rights, you are penalized for that action. Somehow “enhancing” the punishment or the designation of your law-breaking does not make your crime any more or less illegal. Now, motive CAN be used by the state to prove its case, but from whence comes the idea that hatred for someone of another race is somehow worse than the hatred someone had for their spouse?
Further, the choice of who and what is covered under “hate crimes” is made an issue simply by the existence of the legislation. Those people ON the list are suddenly “protected classes” of citizens. ALL classes should be protected equally under the law.
The case for a higher inherent penalty for cop-killers is purely related to the victim’s status as the people’s representative on the streets. Assaulting and/or killing a cop is a direct assault on the authority given him or her to act as our protectors. So there must be a penalty for taking a human life, AND for the insubordination against the authority of the people.
Gabe, as you pointed out, the reason cop killers get harsher punishment is because it is a direct attack on the “people’s representative on the streets”. When a cop is killed the effect on society is greater than the effect of a civilian being killed. Hence the more severe consequences.
The same justification can be applied to hate crime legislation. When a group or individual is victimized on the basis of race, creed, or sexual orientation the damage to society is greater.
Overreaching is certainly an issue and some white thug taking out some black thug should not be quantified as a hate crime solely on the basis of race. However, when one person or group targets another person or group, solely, on the basis of race, gender, or creed the consequences need to mirror the harm to society.
The Supreme Court was pretty clear on this back in 1993.
Your interpretation of the cop-killer crime enhancement is different than mine. The “effect on society” is a nebulous idea that can be read into any action by any group or individual. Punishment for a crime is intended to extract retribution for the injured party or parties through the force of government.
When someone is murdered, the state takes on the role as the injured party and requires some measure of ‘payment’ in the form of prison time or death. Killing a cop constitutes two injuries against the state, requiring a punishment that can cover both – thus the enhancement.
In the case of hate crimes legislation, the government seems to have decided that it must take on some manner of extra injury for an exclusive list of subsegments of the population unrelated to itself and its function. There is no reason for it.
As it stands, crimes already come with a wide array of sentences. It is precisely for the existence of varied circumstances that they exist. Outside of specified hate crimes legislation, a judge and jury are fully capable of giving out harsher sentences to those who commit crimes out of anything from racial hatred to psychopathic antipathy for all of humanity.
Thus, the only result of hate crimes legislation is to create protected classes in violation of the equal protections clause of the Constitution.
Rather than beating a dead horse, I would just like to comment on your last sentence.
Thus, the only result of hate crimes legislation is to create protected classes in violation of the equal protections clause of the Constitution.
I don’t see hate crime legislation as creating protected classes. When defined as a crime committed on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, or nation origin it is pretty inclusive. It isn’t the victim that matters, but the motive.
Al–that’s what it’s supposed to be in theory. That isn’t what it is in practice.
Why should the motive matter anyway? All crime is hate crime, and an insult to the Lord. The Matthew Shepard murder was touted as a hate crime against homosexuals, and yet there was never any evidence that any of the perpetrators knew or cared that Shepard was a homosexual: the motive was simple robbery. Yet that is one of the most famous “hate crimes” in existence. (And no, in case you’re wondering, motive has nothing to do with whether a murder is first or second degree, nor is it necessary for the prosecution to prove ANY motive in order to obtain a conviction.)
What I’m wondering about in these charts is the 6% of the right hand chart that is supposed to designate hate crimes by Latinos against Latinos. How are they coming up with that? What other criteria are coming into play, and doesn’t that throw the entire evaluation into a cocked hat?
“I don’t see hate crime legislation as creating protected classes. When defined as a crime committed on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, or nation origin it is pretty inclusive. It isn’t the victim that matters, but the motive.”
Al, the motive is based on who the victim is, so they are not subjects that can be divorced from each other in this discussion. But the equality of hate crimes legislation you speak of is only such that it exists within the idea of a hate crime in the first place. But how is a hate “crime” different than a “regular” crime of the same type? On one side of time, someone is assaulted because of their race. And on the other, I am assaulted because someone hates me personally. How is the crime against me less of an assault than the one that occurred across town? If a man is a misogynist who beats his wife for burning his dinner, is that a hate crime?
This is far too mushy a concept to be a part of the law, which is already sorely in need of MORE precision, not less.
Trish, motive and intent have *everything* to do with defining whether a murder is 1st or 2nd degree. More germane to this discussion is that the degree is also defined by who the victim is.
For example, in NY, for a person to be charged with 1st degree murder there have to be “special circumstances”; these include the murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime; multiple murders; and torture or especially heinous murders.
As far as the Shepard case goes, you are mistaken. Shepard’s sexual orientation was the key component of the defense’s argument that the killers were reacting to unwanted sexual advances. Not only did they know, they based their entire defense on that knowledge.
Gabe, I agree that the entire concept is “mushy” and while I support hate crime legislation in general, I agree that hate crime legislation, as currently written is in desperate need of clarification.
I wouldn’t be surprised if 99% of these hate crimes are gang related. That’s not meant to be an insult to black and Hispanic people as I am black myself. But I bet its true.
I view all government issued statistics with a healthy bit of skepticism. If you look at the Magan’s law web site for Texas, you will notice that no Hispanic person has ever committed any sexual crimes in that state. Why? Because ALL Hispanics are list as White. Hmmm…Now, why on earth would they list Hispanics as White? Could be it be to perhaps skew the numbers? Why would they want to rig the numbers? It’s asking these questions that may lead you to the truth. Black, White, or Brown, the only way you can ever be a true human being, is to take 100 percent responsibility for your life. Sadly, the vast majority of people who read this will not understand what taking 100 percent responsibility for your life actually means.
I think what you mention, LaShawn, is an obvious conundrum “But silly-law proponents consider it much worse if the thug shouted, ‘Nigger!’ or ‘Fag!’ while hitting the person on the head and grabbing his wallet.”
The obvious reason they report it as a “hate” crime is to illustrate the level to which we (people) succumb in order to desecrate one another in the name of difference. Try as we might, race will always be some sort of factor in all that we do (or at least we’ll perceive it to be that way) and most of us just eat it up!
Comments on this entry are closed.