>

Some of those who work forces
They don't even report how many people they kill to the fed gov. There is no way in hell they report all.hate crimes >

How many of them even believe hate crimes should be a thing? >

If it weren’t for qualified immunity US cops would do nothing but face hate crime charges. 
Their entire existence at this point is a hate crime against the lower and middle class. >

The lower and middle class don't -really- exist. Those are terms coined by the ruling class to artificially divide up the working class. >

While true in spirit, this is entirely false in practice. The life of a poverty-stricken family is vastly different and more difficult than a middle class one. >

Which is done purposely to divide us up, with the goal of making the luckier part of the working class look at the unlucky part of the working class and go "whew, at least I'm not them" instead of "here, let's all work together" >

You're misunderstanding me. I don't really care about how the middle class feels about happy they are about not being lower class. I am saying in order to actually rise up against our oppressors, the middle class must provide for the lower class when push comes to shove.
When/if a general strike that cripples the economy comes along, the only thing that will unite the lower and middle classes is if the lowest classes are provided for. Someone needs to feed them and their kids if the government shuts off the tap. We will need to be more united than ever before. If the middle class turns around and says "not my problem", you have an even bigger class divide than before, and you will never shake off oppression. The lowest classes will not die to make the middle class slightly better off.
Working together is a two way street. The lowest classes are ready to rise up and take back what's theirs, but the middle class is the key to enabling that for millions. >

Fair. I understand what you're saying and agree. With the caveat that when it comes to solidarity they are and need to be treated as one. We are all the working class. >

No caveat needed, that's absolutely the goal. >

I was under the impression that cops do everything they can not to have paperwork, like not reporting crimes. >

Each time I've had to report a crime as the victim, the cops pushed back. Some pushed harder than others, but there was always some form of resistance >

First thing they do is check the victim for warrants so they can just arrest them instead.
It's kind of insane. >

Hey, that's not fair, it's not the first thing they do.
First thing they do is shoot your dog. >

no no, first they punch their spouse. then they shoot your dog. then they try to find a way to arrest you. >

Give them a break, it's a lot of work to both commit the crimes and also report them in detail. >

When you have PTSD from shooting an unarmed suspect who was trying to obey your orders, and you forgot to report it accurately. >

"I would have never said that had I known there was a video." 
-- Actual police officer explaining why he lied about a violent interaction with a civilian. >

Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else noticed?
-Bob Loblaw >

Did you get that off his Law Blog? >

Sure did. BobLoblawsLawBlog .com >

I read the article but am a bit confused - are the police the people who determine if it's a hate crime? Wouldn't that have to be something proved in court? The article itself mentioned that it's difficult to determine the difference between a hate crime and a crime of opportunity, which makes it sound like the cops aren't the ones that determine what is and isn't a hate crime, it's the DA and the courts. >

I don't understand why so many administrations act like it's impossible to determine something is a hate crime.
When a person of one race/religion/sex targets and shoots 5+ people of a different race/religion/sex and has a history of publishing disparaging comments about said people- I think it's safe to label it a hate crime for fucks sake.
Edit: I'm not sure why so many feel the need to give examples of non-obvious hate crimes. The whole point of my comment is we have the exact scenario I described above being labeled as NOT hate crimes. 
If these super obvious examples can't even get correctly labeled, that's the PROBLEM. >

Congrats. You used an obvious example as an example of an obvious example. >

And yet time and time again we see shit like this happen that doesn't get labeled a hate crime. Which, if you'd been paying attention, is what we're talking about, and which is why they used such an obvious example. >

The plural of anecdote isn't data.