Daniel Greenfield writes: An interesting note from the FBI hate crime statistics. In this case 3 out of 4 is literally true because there are 4 murders as bias crimes, 3 of them were Anti-White, only 1 was Anti-Black.
This is interesting because obvious murder is the top tier of crime and bias crime murders are fairly rare. There were only four total this year. Most of the victims were white.
Anti-Black hate crimes are highest where they involve various versions of assaults, what one might call street confrontations. Anti-White bias crimes are highest in more traditional areas of crime, such as theft, robbery,
It’s been widely reported that the stats list anti-Semitic attacks as being a far more common problem than anti-Muslim attacks. What is also interesting is that if you dig into the numbers, the Islamophobia reports are dominated by the “Intimidation” category.
64 out of 178 anti-Muslim hate crimes involve “Intimidation”. Most of the rest are categorized as “Vandalism”. Bias Intimidation is a fairly slippery and subjective category. Which is also why it’s one of the more common. Less than a sixth of anti-Semitic attacks are classified as Intimidation, but over a third of anti-Muslim attacks are.
If a prosecutor is being leaned on to fight the scourge of bigotry, he’ll find some crimes where he can attach Intimidation. And Intimidation is the single highest category for anti-Muslim crimes.
NJ is one of the worst offenders when it comes to overprosecuting “Intimidation”. It got so bad that the law was trashed by the NJ Supreme Court.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the state’s unusual bias-intimidation law was unconstitutional, dealing a potential reversal to one of the most well-known hate crime prosecutions in recent history.
The state’s statute on bias intimidation was the only one of its kind in the nation in saying that defendants can be convicted of bias intimidation if their victims “reasonably believed” they were harassed or intimidated because of their race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
The court, the state’s highest, unanimously ruled that the 2001 statute was “unconstitutionally vague,” because it does not give defendants fair notice of when they are crossing the line to commit a crime.
This is scary stuff because it tosses out basic criminal justice standards and allows crimes to be defined based on what the victim thought. You can see how this was a boon to bringing a lot of false charges.
