[grassroots1]

The fact that a crime has actually taken place is the surest proof that the group of peers of the victim have a rational fear. Whether you are a black person facing KKK persecution, or a white jogger assaulted in Central Park, you are still an innocent victim, and others like you have rational cause for additional fear.

This is ridiculous, a black person in the south could not even hide in their own house. A white jogger in central park can go home and hide from the big scary world in her apartment and rest assured that if she called the cops they would take her seriously. Many black people in America still don't call the police because they don't trust them. We are talking about systemic trends not isolated cases. Interestingly this is much the same conflict we have over politics, you take the isolated case of a so-called "mutually beneficial arrangement," while I look at the broader results of a system formed through those transactions.

Actually, a police officer killer is much more likely to have acted in legitimate self-defence than somebody who killed a drug addict. A-priori, I would have much more sympathy for the former than for the latter.

Does it make sense to make any assumption without evidence? (Answer: no)

[Pants-of-dog]

The logic doesn't work. If a relatively small group is targeted, each member has more reason to fear, but the extra fear is spread amongst a relatively small group.

If a larger group is targeted, each member has less reason for additional fear, but that extra fear is shared amongst many more people.

The two effects of the size of the targeted group are offset.

The fact that a crime has actually taken place is the surest proof that the group of peers of the victim have a rational fear. Whether you are a black person facing KKK persecution, or a white jogger assaulted in Central Park, you are still an innocent victim, and others like you have rational cause for additional fear.

As well as what grassroots has said, specifically in terms of systemic trends in regards to police reaction, I would like to add that hate crimes also have the effect of magnifying (or, hopefully, simply slowing the reduction of) this historical oppression.

[Eran]

This is ridiculous, a black person in the south could not even hide in their own house.

We are not talking about the obviously and undisputed morally urgent need to eliminate government-imposed and promoted discrimination against blacks in the south.

The issue here is that of criminal targeting of different people for different purposes.

Many black people in America still don't call the police because they don't trust them.

And understandably so. The police is a fundamentally political body, responding to the interests of the politically powerful. Again, you should focus on reforming discriminating state institutions (like the police), rather than differentially punishing murderers based on their motivation.

Interestingly this is much the same conflict we have over politics, you take the isolated case of a so-called "mutually beneficial arrangement," while I look at the broader results of a system formed through those transactions.

I can see how you would think so. You consistently advocate government intervention to try and impact macro-social outcomes. I reject government intervention in terms of both their legitimacy and their efficacy.

The discussion in this thread focused, I believe, on the legitimacy of such interventions. As you might guess, I have deep doubts as to their efficacy as well, with such unintended consequences as driving racially-motivated activities underground in mind.

Does it make sense to make any assumption without evidence?

Empirical evidence is only one way of substantiating assumptions. Logic is another.

Police officers are routinely tasked with enforcing laws prohibiting victimless crimes. Given the weight of the war on drugs within the criminal-justice system, I think it is reasonable to assume that a significant fraction of police officers killed takes place as part of the war on drugs. Since drug trading is not inherently wrong, drug dealers have the right to protect themselves.

While some drug addicts might be engaged in aggressive activities (i.e. violating other people's property rights), not all do. Some may well be innocently going about their business, while being caught in the cross-fire.

hate crimes also have the effect of magnifying (or, hopefully, simply slowing the reduction of) this historical oppression.

Perhaps, though I doubt it. I think there is a very small and quickly-diminishing correlation between the status of African-Americans, gays, Asians, Jews and other targets of so-called hate crimes and any historical oppression.

The fact that most historically-discriminated-against groups are today flourishing (including gays, Jews and Asians) is strongly suggestive that the status of African Americans has different explanation.

[grassroots1]

Why the need to single out certain groups in society and say their life is worth more than another member in society, why not treat all people who murder the same and impose equal sentences on them?

Agreed, army officers who make orders that result in the loss of human life as well as the soldiers who carry the orders out should be prosecuted like any other murdering psychopath.

[Eran]

Indeed. As should be police officers who kill, maim, assault or kidnap people who have harmed no others.

[Wolfman]

Agreed, army officers who make orders that result in the loss of human life as well as the soldiers who carry the orders out should be prosecuted like any other murdering psychopath.

I order the bombing of a house known to have militants in it. Turns out, there are also civilians in it. Alternatively, the missile strikes the wrong target and civilians die. Alternatively, the intelligence I was given was faulty and there was never any militants inside. In all of these situations, nothing will happen. Possibly a board of inquiry to determine the facts.