>

they expect police to tell on themselves?
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. >

Some of those who work forces >

I'm down for robots to take away police jobs. Robocop needs to happen soon. >

No shit Sherlock! It's been a long time I knew the cops were unaccounted for. They have too much power to care. >

And until there is a massive change in policy and personnel, we never will see a complete picture. The police are one of the most corrupt organizations in the country, incompetent training and being told that shooting first is perfectly acceptable while practically indoctrinating its members into the most blatant stereotyping hate groups known. Their training is beyond subpar as it takes less than a year of training to get you in, even the fucking military has longer training requirements and don’t get me started about other countries, they at least have a minimum requirement of 1-3 full years of training and require their officers to do refresher training at least 1-2 times a year. America needs to do better, but as long as the old worthless fucks in charge of our government are only beholden to their corporate backers we will never see change >

Because they commit the most of them >

Why would the police report crimes they perpetrate? >

It’s because the police are committing most of them. >

That kind of looks like self serving gross negligence by police unions.... >

Well I mean, I would venture a guess that they are not being reported by the people who are committing them. >

In the case of hate crimes in small communities the police simply don't want to report on their friends and family (or themselves). >

Personal experience with police not reporting a hate crime (arson of a minority owned business) despite the presence of hate speech graffiti .. police said “no proof” .. >

Police behave like a gang. That includes not ratting out their white supremacist friends. >

My high school used to have an ex NYPD detective come to give talks and he unironically called them a street gang as if it was a good thing. In retrospect it was pretty tasteless. >

Aside from really small towns with only a handful of cops of the force, they basically are the largest and most dangerous street gang in any given area. >

In other news, the sun rises in the morning. >

Don't narc on your buddies! >

This is what happens when law enforcement doesnt have independent oversight.
And any time it's suggested, they lose their minds. There's a reason for that
Police aren't here to serve us. They've been corrupt since the start. >

Wow it's almost like they want to cover up the crimes. >

What?!? Armed, racist gang doesn’t report hate crimes accurately?!? >

they don't report on themselves and others in blue or blue adjacent.  Here is how I see it is bad as it ever was maybe even worst. >

Well, yeah. Criminals tend not to document and report their crimes. >

In the last couple of years, we have seen that the police do actively choose what they enforce, despite all the bullshit about how they don’t make the laws.
I’m talking about mask mandates, more recently, some of these assault rifle bands in some states, and of course the way black people are more likely to be targeted for marijuana possession. >

It should be the district attorneys who report it, shouldn't it? >

To be fair, they have rights against self incrimination. >

Of course not. They're blatantly complicit. >

I mean, are they going to report the crimes that they are the ones committing? >

Well yea. At least 1/10 hate crimes has to be commit by the police and no argument could convince me otherwise.