Skip to comments.FBI Hate Crime Statistics, 2000
Posted on 11/24/2001 1:02:04 PM PST by forest
For Release Monday, November 19, 2001
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) today released the publication Hate Crime Statistics, 2000, which annually reports on bias-motivated incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders.(1) During 2000, law enforcement reported 8,063 bias-motivated criminal incidents to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. As viewed by the national Program, a hate crime may have multiple offenses, victims, and offenders within one incident. Thus, the 8,063 incidents involved a total of 9,430 offenses, 9,924 victims, and 7,530 known (distinguishable) offenders.
Intimidation continued to be the most often reported hate crime offense during 2000, accounting for 34.9 percent of all measured offenses and 53.7 percent of total crimes against persons.
Destruction/damage/vandalism to property was the most frequently reported crime against property and comprised 29.3 percent of the total offenses and 85.3 percent of total crimes against property.
Nineteen of the hate crime victims were murdered as a result of their killers' prejudice. Ten of these homicides involved racial bias; 6 were attributed to a bias against an ethnicity or national origin; 2 more were driven by bias against a sexual orientation; and 1 resulted from a religious bias.
Under UCR definitions, a victim may be either a person, a business, an institution, or society as a whole. Of the 9,430 hate crime offenses, 7,745 were committed against individuals; 6,130 targeted persons and 1,615 targeted their property. Businesses, religious organizations, and various other institutions were the targets of 1,685 of the reported offenses.
The term known offender, for UCR purposes, does not imply that the identity of the perpetrator is known but only that a distinguishing attribute, race, has been identified. Of the 7,530 known offenders, 4,847 were white, 1,411 were black, and the remainder were other races (157) or of unknown race (729). Multiracial groups (groups of offenders of varying races) accounted for 386 offenders.
Racial prejudice was the motive in the majority of single-bias incidents, 53.8 percent; religious bias underlay 18.3 percent; sexual-orientation bias, 16.1 percent; and ethnicity/national origin, 11.3 percent. Disability bias was the catalyst in less than 1 percent of incidents. There were 8 victims of incidents involving multiple biases in 2000.
The majority of hate crime incidents (32.1 percent) occurred in or on residential properties. Highways, roads, alleys, or streets were the settings for 17.9 percent of the reported incidents, and 11.4 percent took place at schools and colleges. The remaining incidents were distributed among various locations.
Agencies in 48 states and the District of Columbia participated in the Hate Crime Data Collection Program during 2000. Collectively, the 11,690 reporting agencies represent 236.9 million United States inhabitants or 84.2 percent of the Nation's population. Though the reports from these agencies are insufficient to allow a valid national or regional measure of the volume and types of crimes motivated by hate, they offer perspectives on the general nature of hate crime occurrence.
Also see: Uniform Crime Reports at:
Does this mean they collected a lot of statistics that show blacks are intimidated by whites and report it as a hate crime?
Perhaps that is true, but according to your statistics, a black is also 32 times more likely to be a victim of a hate crime as an individual white. This is what it means to be a minority.
For example, if there are 9 whites and 1 black in a room and 4 whites don't like the black and hit him and the black does not like the whites and hits a white, the black guy gets hit 4 times while a white gets hit 1/9th of a time. So even though the black guy got hit 4 times, in the room blacks are twice as likely to commit a hate crime as a white.
What a load of horse manure.
I guess it is probably because if one out of every six whites decided to shoot a black, and every single black decided to shoot a white, then one out of every 6 whites in the country would be dead, while 100% of the blacks would be dead.
You can't. That is why the whole idea of "hate crimes" is bogus. A crime is a crime is a crime. Trying to postulate the mental state of the perpetrator is simply stupid (which is why the liberals are so in love with it).
This young man later died after being gang beaten while racial slurs were tossed at him. Were the attackers charged with hate crimes? No. Instead it was smothered up. Buried. Maybe because Kime was white and his attackers were black.
There is a young woman out there today alive because of this mans sacrifice. And the media, and justice system refuses to give him the justice he deserves.
During the riots one of the attackers arrested was an individual named "Khallid Adams." He claimed he intentially hit victims because they were asian or white. he even claimed at one point it was part of his personal "race war." Was Adams sentenced to hate crimes charges? No. They were dropped. This is a sad state of affairs occuring around the country. And it happens over and over and over. Oftentimes "hate crimes" statistics are manipulated not by arrest but by conviction factor. and there is a difference.
Will the manipulation of these "statistics" keep my family,myself or anyone else safe? I doubt it.
No they dont. They show only the results of political action groups that encourage their members to report verbal insults and physical attacks to their local police departments, and those groups require the police departments to fill out an official FBI hate crime form. The most active groups that pursue this distorted disproportionate reporting are black, gay, and Jewish. Most white Gentiles dont know of the existence of these FBI forms.
It's not in the mind of the perpetrator, it's in the mind of the receiving person.
Intimidation continued to be the most often reported hate crime offense during 2000
I think that crime that is done for no reasonable reason other than the desire to commit crime is worse than a crime done for a reasonable motive.
I think shooting people at random, for no reason than the enjoyment of mayhem is worse than shooting to rob, exact revenge, road rage ,or other reason.
The extension to hate crimes simply means that "hate crime" laws mean greater punishment for those who commit crimes for no explainable reason other than dislike of someone's race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or national origin.
As far as reading intent, this is done all the time in murder cases. 1st degree murder is intentional, while other murder is not. They are both murder, but one type gets a tougher sentence. The same goes for malicious destruction. The same applies in civil suits where punitive damages are handed out for intentional wrong doing as opposed to accidental wrong doing. Hate crime laws are an extention of these ideas.
I guess this would mean that there is no difference between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder.
"I think shooting people at random, for no reason than the enjoyment of mayhem is worse than shooting to rob, exact revenge, road rage ,or other reason."
"The extension to hate crimes simply means that "hate crime" laws mean greater punishment for those who commit crimes for no explainable reason other than dislike of someone's race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or national origin."
"As far as reading intent, this is done all the time in murder cases. 1st degree murder is intentional, while other murder is not. They are both murder, but one type gets a tougher sentence. The same goes for malicious destruction. The same applies in civil suits where punitive damages are handed out for intentional wrong doing as opposed to accidental wrong doing. Hate crime laws are an extention of these ideas."
All these "thoughts" do is prove that you have been successfully brainwashed by the left. "Hate crimes" are right out of the book "1984". No matter what the "reason" behind it, a given crime is equally bad, no matter WHAT the motivation behind it. What you are actually talking about is UNEQUAL protection under the law. Next you will be (and your colleagues on the left are already trying to put the process in place of) criminalizing people simply for THINKING about harming someone ("thought" crime), or talking about same ("speech" crime). I'm sorry, but this is BS.
Why not take your "liberal-think" over to Democrats Unlimited, where they "think" like you do?
If I shoot a cop or the president, it's hanging time, but if I shoot a homeless person, I might get 2 years if I have a good lawyer. This is because, killing a cop is deemed more injurious to society than killing a street bum.
Further, I will say that random killings, like a sniper on a rooftop, is far more tramatizing and detrimental for society than a person who shoots his wife because he was rightly or wrongly jealous about someone. You will find that juries agree with me.
Hate crime laws simply are saying that killing someone because you don't like their race or whatever is worse than killing someone because you want to rob them and the victim resists. I agree with this because racial crimes are more injurious to society than non racial crimes because the breed division, disunity, and anger in the society. I am against hate crime laws because they breed even more division and disunity. Nevertheless, you should see that those on the other side have a valid case.
And since there are still lots of blacks I guess that sort blows the idea that all whites are racists crap out of the water.
Can there be such a thing as a black on black or white on white hate crime? Like some gang members who will shoot other gang members on sight? Aren't they profiling and killing because of hate?
Besides, the largest grouping is "intimidation," which isn't a crime, unless, apparently, it's a Hate Crime. this defies logic, IMO.
If it's a crime for a white person to intimidate a black person, then it HAS to be a crime for a white person to intimidate a white person. Otherwise, it violates the equal protection clause.
Not if you're the victim...
Nope, I don't see any such thing. All I see is leftist propaganda at odds with our Constitution and laws. Don't you find it just a bit "odd" that the only people advocating "hate crimes" just happen to be leftists, and the only people that will end up on the pointed end of the stick are those on the right?? See, as a case in point, the treatment of Timothy McVeigh and the much larger number of eco-terrorists who routinely bomb\burn\and destroy. Why doesn't the FBI pursue these LEFTWING terrorists with fervor equal to that which they invest in pursuing the "Aryan Nation" and "Christian Identity" (all five guys of them!).
This P.C. business has to end. Am I the only one who sees that Hate Crime Laws seem slanted to encompass the White Americans? One need look no further than the incidents of the Cincinatti Riots not so very long ago.....how many of the blacks who chose White victims to smash with bricks, fists, feet, and any other means they could think of, were actually brought up on Hate Crime Charges? Had the situation been reversed....you can rest assured that the entire White populaton would have been condemned as evil biggots and racists, and would have been sent straight to prison!!
So much for the supposed equality everyone keeps harping on. EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.....SPECIAL PRIVILAGES FOR NONE!!!
I figure you might like having me around to argue with or is it that I make too much sense.
I don't give a flip if he stood on the street corner and yelled at Clinton. If he believes in the idea of hate crimes, he is no supporter of the Constitution.
Actually, I mentioned eco-terrorists in general. Although your view that the Unabomber is not an eco-terrorist is as whacky as the rest of your ideas.
The Unabomber's ideas are EXACTLY in tune with the more radical eco-nutcases.
I can't say that I see that ANY of your positions thus far stated that have made sense.