Not quite - the pic you posted was not reported as a hate crime. The data set comprises reported hate crimes. Common sense says that an unreported incident would more likely be a hoax, because it would be spotted as a hoax (or as fishy) before it's deemed a hate crime.
One of the reasons why prosecutors have >90% conviction rates is that they refuse to prosecute iffy charges.
Roughly 30 per page and 6 pages, a quick scan shows dates of 2010 so at least 6 years. That gives 180 falsely reported hate crimes over at least 6 years.
Funny how that's the excuse you both jumped to.
I'm a firm believe on Occam's Razor though.
http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/
Not quite - the pic you posted was not reported as a hate crime. The data set comprises reported hate crimes. Common sense says that an unreported incident would more likely be a hoax, because it would be spotted as a hoax (or as fishy) before it's deemed a hate crime.
One of the reasons why prosecutors have >90% conviction rates is that they refuse to prosecute iffy charges.
Also, this:
Timing matters...
Roughly 30 per page and 6 pages, a quick scan shows dates of 2010 so at least 6 years. That gives 180 falsely reported hate crimes over at least 6 years.
According to the FBI there were 5,479 hate crimes in 2015 alone. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-hate-crime-statistics-available
So even if I do the math incorrectly in your favor, by comparing 10 years of hoaxes to just 2015, that's a roughly 2% chance that this was a hoax.