Chapter 15 Victim Segment

The Victim Segment provides data at the victim-level and includes information about who the victim is and their relationship to offenders. This data tells us what “type” of victim it is with the type meaning if they are a police officer, a civilian (“Individual” and basically any person who is not a police officer), a business, the government, etc. It also includes the standard demographics variables in other segments - age, race, sex, ethnicity - as well as whether the victim is a resident (i.e. do they live there?) of the jurisdiction where they were victimized. We also learn from this data what types of injuries (if any) the victim suffered as a result of the crime. This is limited to physical injuries - excluding important outcomes such as mental duress or PTSD - but allows for a much better measure of harm from crime than simply assuming (or using past studies that tend to be old and only look at the cost of crime) what harm comes from certain offenses. There are seven possible injury types (including no injury at all) and victims can report up to five of these injuries so we have a fairly detailed measure of victim injury.

One highly interesting variable in this segment is the relationship between the victim and the offender (for up to 10 offenders). This includes, for example, if the victim was the offender’s wife, their child, employee, or if the stranger was unknown to them, with 27 total possible relationship categories. You can use this to determine which incidents were crimes by strangers, identify domestic violence, or simply learn who tends to commit crimes against certain types of victims. This variable is only available when the victim is a police officer or an “individual.” This makes some sense though there could actually be cases where non-human victims (e.g. businesses, religious organizations) do have a relationship with the offender such as an employee stealing from a store. Related to the victim-offender relationship, this segment provides a bit of information about the motive for the crime. For aggravated assaults and homicides, there is a variable with the “circumstance” of the offense which is essentially the reason why the crime occurred. For example, possible circumstances are arguments between people, hunting accidents, child playing with weapon, and domestic violence.

It also has a “victim sequence number” which is a number identifying the victim in an incident since some incidents have multiple victims.

15.1 Crime category

The first variable we will look at is the crime the victim experienced. This is a bit different than the offenses in the Offense Segment as not all victims in an incident are victimized by all of the crimes involved. For example, if a couple is assaulted and the woman is raped, the woman would experience rape and assault while the man only experiences assault. NIBRS allows for up to 10 offenses per victim and these are supposed to be ranked in order of seriousness. So the first variable has the most serious offense, the second has the second most serious offense, and so on. This is true is most cases but some have more minor crimes presented before more serious crimes. This seems to just be a data entry issue and nothing systematic but you should still check all offense variables if you are interested in finding the most serious crime per victim.

There are 52 possible offenses included in this segment and Table 15.1 shows how frequent each offense is. Though there are 10 possible offenses per victim, this table only looks at the first offense. The most common offense is simple assault, affecting 12.7% of victims or 944k people. This is followed by damage, vandalism, or destruction of property for 11% of victims. About 9.6% of victims experience drugs/narcotic violations, and these victims are likely also the offenders in the case (all incidents must have a victim recorded so in drug crimes the victims are also the offenders in most cases). Theft crimes, broken into some subcategories like “all other larceny” and “theft from motor vehicle” make up the three of the top six crimes (ranks 3, 5, and 6) people are victimized by. And the only remaining crime that accounts for 5% or more of offenses is burglary at 6.4%.

Table 15.1: The number and percent of crimes committed against each victim, counting all victims and then separately law enforcement officer victims, 2023. For victims with multiple crimes committed against them, this shows the first crime reported.
Crime Category First Year # of Victims % of Victims # of Officer Victims % of Officer Victims
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault 1991 2,195,115 15.77% 55,194 64.25%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny 1991 1,429,317 10.27% 0 0%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property 1991 1,323,048 9.51% 0 0%
Drug/Narcotic Offenses - Drug/Narcotic Violations 1991 1,059,465 7.61%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting 1991 985,502 7.08% 0 0%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle 1991 978,366 7.03% 0 0%
Motor Vehicle Theft 1991 872,932 6.27% 0 0%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering 1991 766,014 5.50% 0 0%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault 1991 734,379 5.28% 19,812 23.06%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation 1991 695,310 5.00% 10,838 12.62%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game 1991 364,120 2.62% 0 0%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building 1991 305,819 2.20% 0 0%
Weapon Law Violations - Weapon Law Violations 1991 270,726 1.95%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 1991 269,802 1.94%
Robbery 1991 232,340 1.67%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft 2015 195,639 1.41%
Drug/Narcotic Offenses - Drug Equipment Violations 1991 171,174 1.23%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud 1991 161,428 1.16%
Counterfeiting/Forgery 1991 148,349 1.07% 0 0%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) 1991 119,368 0.86% 0 0%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) 1991 92,650 0.67% 0 0%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation 1991 79,989 0.57% 0 0%
Sex Offenses - Rape 1991 78,648 0.57%
Kidnapping/Abduction 1991 49,193 0.35% 14 0.02%
Pornography/Obscene Material 1991 45,160 0.32%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud 1991 42,649 0.31%
Arson 1991 37,275 0.27% 0 0%
Embezzlement 1991 33,078 0.24%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking 1991 26,829 0.19%
Extortion/Blackmail 1991 26,361 0.19%
Animal Cruelty 2015 21,898 0.16%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy 1991 19,352 0.14%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter 1991 16,144 0.12% 47 0.05%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching 1991 12,261 0.09%
Prostitution Offenses - Prostitution 1991 8,545 0.06%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape 1991 8,088 0.06%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object 1991 7,318 0.05%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion 2015 6,883 0.05%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud 1991 5,972 0.04%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device 1991 5,044 0.04%
Prostitution Offenses - Purchasing Prostitution 2013 2,780 0.02%
Prostitution Offenses - Assisting Or Promoting Prostitution 1991 2,711 0.02%
Negligent Manslaughter 1991 2,018 0.01%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts 2013 1,969 0.01%
Sex Offenses - Incest 1991 1,253 0.01%
Gambling Offenses - Operating/Promoting/Assisting Gambling 1991 998 0.01%
Bribery 1991 712 0.01% 0 0%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime 1991 691 0.00%
Gambling Offenses - Betting/Wagering 1991 625 0.00%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude 2014 592 0.00%
Gambling Offenses - Gambling Equipment Violations 1991 487 0.00%
Commerce Violations - Federal Liquor Offenses 2020 110 0.00%
Fugitive Offenses - Flight To Avoid Prosecution 2021 100 0.00%
Sex Offenses - Failure To Register As A Sex Offender 2019 41 0.00%
Gambling Offenses - Sports Tampering 1994 7 0.00%
Immigration Violations - Illegal Entry Into The United States 2020 3 0.00%
Commerce Violations - Wildlife Trafficking 2023 2 0.00%
Weapon Law Violations - Explosives 2021 1 0.00%
Commerce Violations - Federal Tobacco Offenses 2021 1 0.00%
Fraud Offenses - Money Laundering 2022 1 0.00%
Total
13,916,652 100%
The share of victims when considering only the 1st offense reported compared to using all offenses, for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, sex offenses, motor vehicle theft, and destruction of property/vandalism, 1991-2023.

Figure 15.1: The share of victims when considering only the 1st offense reported compared to using all offenses, for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, sex offenses, motor vehicle theft, and destruction of property/vandalism, 1991-2023.

15.2 Victim type

I spoke above as if all victims are people who are victimized. This is not entirely true. Some victims may be organizations, businesses, or other inanimate objects. NIBRS has nine different types of victims (including “unknown” type and “other” type) in the data and it tells us which type each victim is.

Table 15.2 shows each of the victim types and how commonly they appear in the data. Two key ones are “individual” at 69.4% of victims and law enforcement officer at 0.5% of victims. Law enforcement officers who are victimized are only classified as law enforcement officers when they are the victims of murder, aggravated or simple assault, or intimidation. Otherwise they are labeled as “individual” victims. So an individual is a person who is either not a law enforcement officer or who is an officer but is not victimized by one of the approved crimes. These two are special types of victims as all other variables in this segment apply only to them. This is because non-humans cannot have demographic information, injuries (injury to property would be detailed in the Property Segment in Chapter 17), or relationships.96

The next most common type is business at 15.6% of victims, “society/public” at 12.9% of victims, and the government in 1% of victims. When the victim is society/public that means that the offense is a “victimless crime” or one where there is no specific victim. This includes drug offenses, animal cruelty (animals cannon be victims in this data), prostitution-related offenses (purchasing, promoting, and being a prostitute), pornography/obscene materials, and weapon offenses. The remaining categories - financial institution, other victim type, unknown victim type, and religion organization - are each under 0.25% of victims.

Table 15.2: The distribution of the type of victim, 2023. Victim types are mutually exclusive.
Type of Victim First Year # of Victims % of Victims
Individual 1991 9,828,448 70.62%
Business 1991 2,167,742 15.58%
Society/Public 1991 1,584,720 11.39%
Government 1991 155,343 1.12%
Law Enforcement Officer 2002 85,905 0.62%
Other 1991 39,381 0.28%
Financial Institution 1991 21,677 0.16%
Unknown 1991 18,041 0.13%
Religious Organization 1991 15,395 0.11%
Total
13,916,652 100%
Percent of victimizations whose victim type of 'law enforcement officer,' 'business,' or 'invidual,' 1991-2023.

Figure 15.2: Percent of victimizations whose victim type of ‘law enforcement officer,’ ‘business,’ or ‘invidual,’ 1991-2023.

15.3 Injury

An important variable that is completely missing in UCR data is how injured the victim was. NIBRS has eight different categories of victim injuries ranging from no injury to serious injuries such as “possible internal injury” or “apparent broken bones”. NIBRS includes five variables for victim injuries so up to five of the seven injury types (if there is no injury, that will take up the first variable and no others will be recorded) per victim. These injuries should be thought of as suspected injuries based on observations by the officer or what the victim says. These do not need to be confirmed by a doctor. Therefore there is some imprecision on the exact victim injury. For example, “possible internal injury” means only the possibility, even if the victim does not turn out to have internal injuries.

However, it is still a useful measure of victim injury and is highly necessary given that UCR data does not provide any indication about injury. As academics continue to argue about which crimes are serious, this variable can provide information as to exactly how injured victims are from the crime. Not all crimes have this information. The FBI only includes this information for what they consider violent crimes which are listed below (since victims may have up to 10 offenses recorded, only one offense has to be among the below list for injury to be recorded).

  • Aggravated assault
  • Extortion/blackmail
  • Fondling
  • Human trafficking - commercial sex acts
  • Human trafficking - involuntary servitude
  • Kidnapping/abduction
  • Rape
  • Robbery
  • Sexual assault with an object
  • Simple assault
  • Sodomy

Even though there are up to five victim injuries recorded, for the below graphs I am just looking at the first variable. Injuries are sorted by seriousness with the first recorded injury more serious than the second, and so on, so this will look at the most serious injuries victims received. As with most variables in this data, only “individual” and law enforcement officer victims have this info.

Figure 15.3 shows the eight injury categories and how common they are for all victims with this information reported. The most common type is “none” at 52.6% of injuries which means the victim did not suffer any injuries at all. This is followed by 42.0% of victims suffering “apparent minor injuries.” The six serious injuries are far lesson common and given that nearly a third of victims suffer none or minor injuries are hard to see on the graph. To make it easier to see, Figure ?? shows the breakdown in victim injury excluding those who did not suffer an injury or those who suffered a minor injury.

The distribution of the injury sustained by the victim, 2023. Only individual and law enforcement officer victims have this variable available.

Figure 15.3: The distribution of the injury sustained by the victim, 2023. Only individual and law enforcement officer victims have this variable available.

For the group who suffered one of the six more serious injury types, 32.1% suffered an “other major injury” which is a serious injury other than one of the other categories. This is followed by 25.8% having a serious laceration (a laceration is a cut), 21.6% having a possible internal injury, and 12.5% having an apparent broken bone. About 6.5% of these victims became unconscious at some point in the incident, and 1.5% lost at least one tooth.

Trends for law enforcement officer victims (not shown) are nearly identical for those with an injury but have more victims reporting no injury at all relative to non-law enforcement officer victims.

Table 15.3: The number and percent of victim injury by offense, 2023. This breakdown is only available for a subset of offenses. There can be up to five injuries per victim; in this table we only use the first injury reported. There can be up to 10 offenses per victim; in this table we only use the first offense reported.
Crime Injury # of Offenses % of Offenses
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault None 360,659 49.11%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Apparent Minor Injuries 194,088 26.43%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Other Major Injury 69,039 9.40%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Severe Laceration 44,958 6.12%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Possible Internal Injury 35,753 4.87%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Apparent Broken Bones 18,040 2.46%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Unconsciousness 9,336 1.27%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Loss of Teeth 2,506 0.34%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Total 734,379 100%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Apparent Minor Injuries 1,109,178 50.53%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault None 1,085,936 49.47%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Other Major Injury 1 0.00%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Total 2,195,115 100%
Extortion/Blackmail None 25,868 98.13%
Extortion/Blackmail Unknown 378 1.43%
Extortion/Blackmail Apparent Minor Injuries 82 0.31%
Extortion/Blackmail Other Major Injury 18 0.07%
Extortion/Blackmail Loss of Teeth 5 0.02%
Extortion/Blackmail Unconsciousness 4 0.02%
Extortion/Blackmail Severe Laceration 3 0.01%
Extortion/Blackmail Apparent Broken Bones 2 0.01%
Extortion/Blackmail Possible Internal Injury 1 0.00%
Extortion/Blackmail Total 26,361 100%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts None 1,819 92.38%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Apparent Minor Injuries 98 4.98%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Possible Internal Injury 25 1.27%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Other Major Injury 15 0.76%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Apparent Broken Bones 8 0.41%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Unconsciousness 2 0.10%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Loss of Teeth 2 0.10%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Total 1,969 100%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude None 541 91.39%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Apparent Minor Injuries 40 6.76%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Other Major Injury 6 1.01%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Possible Internal Injury 3 0.51%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Apparent Broken Bones 2 0.34%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Total 592 100%
Kidnapping/Abduction None 28,007 56.93%
Kidnapping/Abduction Apparent Minor Injuries 16,718 33.98%
Kidnapping/Abduction Possible Internal Injury 1,598 3.25%
Kidnapping/Abduction Other Major Injury 1,424 2.89%
Kidnapping/Abduction Severe Laceration 589 1.20%
Kidnapping/Abduction Apparent Broken Bones 411 0.84%
Kidnapping/Abduction Unconsciousness 400 0.81%
Kidnapping/Abduction Loss of Teeth 46 0.09%
Kidnapping/Abduction Total 49,193 100%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Unknown 15,826 98.03%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Other Major Injury 225 1.39%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Possible Internal Injury 28 0.17%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter None 23 0.14%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Unconsciousness 15 0.09%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Severe Laceration 14 0.09%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Apparent Broken Bones 7 0.04%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Apparent Minor Injuries 6 0.04%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Total 16,144 100%
Robbery None 137,133 59.02%
Robbery Apparent Minor Injuries 50,658 21.80%
Robbery Unknown 33,999 14.63%
Robbery Other Major Injury 3,366 1.45%
Robbery Severe Laceration 3,271 1.41%
Robbery Possible Internal Injury 2,088 0.90%
Robbery Apparent Broken Bones 1,050 0.45%
Robbery Unconsciousness 587 0.25%
Robbery Loss of Teeth 188 0.08%
Robbery Total 232,340 100%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) None 85,691 92.49%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Apparent Minor Injuries 5,193 5.60%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Possible Internal Injury 1,089 1.18%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Other Major Injury 510 0.55%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Unconsciousness 82 0.09%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Apparent Broken Bones 38 0.04%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Severe Laceration 33 0.04%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Loss of Teeth 14 0.02%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Total 92,650 100%
Sex Offenses - Rape None 57,292 72.85%
Sex Offenses - Rape Apparent Minor Injuries 13,731 17.46%
Sex Offenses - Rape Possible Internal Injury 5,547 7.05%
Sex Offenses - Rape Other Major Injury 1,256 1.60%
Sex Offenses - Rape Unconsciousness 574 0.73%
Sex Offenses - Rape Severe Laceration 132 0.17%
Sex Offenses - Rape Apparent Broken Bones 92 0.12%
Sex Offenses - Rape Loss of Teeth 24 0.03%
Sex Offenses - Rape Total 78,648 100%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object None 5,457 74.57%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Apparent Minor Injuries 1,165 15.92%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Possible Internal Injury 565 7.72%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Other Major Injury 84 1.15%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Unconsciousness 24 0.33%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Severe Laceration 12 0.16%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Apparent Broken Bones 9 0.12%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Loss of Teeth 2 0.03%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Total 7,318 100%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy None 15,728 81.27%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Apparent Minor Injuries 2,321 11.99%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Possible Internal Injury 987 5.10%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Other Major Injury 196 1.01%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Unconsciousness 72 0.37%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Severe Laceration 30 0.16%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Apparent Broken Bones 16 0.08%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Loss of Teeth 2 0.01%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Total 19,352 100%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Unknown 8,054 99.58%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape None 30 0.37%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Apparent Minor Injuries 4 0.05%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Total 8,088 100%
Victim injury for assault offenses, by injury severity, 1991-2023. Major injury is all injury types other than 'none' and 'apparent minor injuries' which are 'other major injury,' 'severe laceration,' possible internal injury,' apparent broken bones,' 'unconsciousness,' and 'loss of teeth.'

Figure 15.4: Victim injury for assault offenses, by injury severity, 1991-2023. Major injury is all injury types other than ‘none’ and ‘apparent minor injuries’ which are ‘other major injury,’ ‘severe laceration,’ possible internal injury,’ apparent broken bones,’ ‘unconsciousness,’ and ‘loss of teeth.’

15.4 Relationship to offender

One interesting variable in this segment is that we know the relationship between the victim and the offender. There are 27 possible relationship types (including “unknown” relationship) which can be broken into three broad categories: legal family members, people known to the victim but who aren’t family, and people not known to the victim. These relationship categories are mutually exclusive. If, for example, there were two possible relationship categories that apply, such as the victim was both the friend and the neighbor of the offender, only a single category would be reported.

Table 15.4 shows each of the relationship categories and how frequently they occur. The most common relationship category, accounting for 19.8% of relationships was that the relationship was unknown. This is followed by 14.4% of victims being the boyfriend or girlfriend (we can find out which by looking at their sex) of the offender. Then victims were the acquaintance of or a stranger to the offender at 13% and 12.8%, respectively. The only other categories that account for over 5% of victims are the victim being “otherwise known” to the offender at 9.5% and being the spouse of the offender at 5.4%. One relationship to note is that when the victim “was child” that means they were the offender’s biological or adopted child. This does not mean that they are actually a child (<18 years old).

Table 15.4: The distribution of the relationship between the victim and the offender. Only individual and law enforcement officer victims have this variable available, 2023.
Crime Category First Year # of Victims % of Victims # of Officer Victims % of Officer Victims
Relationship Unknown 1991 1,363,398 25.31% 18,636 21.84%
Victim Was Stranger 1991 885,609 16.44% 49,927 58.52%
Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 1991 577,023 10.71% 119 0.14%
Victim Was Acquaintance 1991 564,856 10.49% 2,460 2.88%
Victim Was Otherwise Known 1991 427,730 7.94% 13,625 15.97%
Victim Was Spouse 1991 233,719 4.34% 46 0.05%
Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 2017 192,551 3.57% 19 0.02%
Victim Was Parent 1991 191,072 3.55% 27 0.03%
Victim Was Child 1991 145,138 2.69% 5 0.01%
Victim Was Other Family Member 1991 125,412 2.33% 45 0.05%
Victim Was Sibling (Brother Or Sister) 1991 120,732 2.24% 16 0.02%
Victim Was Friend 1991 105,166 1.95% 11 0.01%
Victim Was Offender 1991 100,034 1.86% 6 0.01%
Victim Was Neighbor 1991 95,074 1.77% 24 0.03%
Victim Was Ex-Spouse 1991 86,707 1.61% 24 0.03%
Victim Was Common-Law Spouse 1991 26,392 0.49% 11 0.01%
Victim Was In-Law 1991 23,378 0.43% 45 0.05%
Victim Was Step-Child 1991 21,505 0.40% 3 0.00%
Victim Was Grandparent 1991 21,361 0.40% 7 0.01%
Victim Was Step-Parent 1991 17,322 0.32% 3 0.00%
Victim Was Employee 1991 16,410 0.30% 229 0.27%
Victim Was Employer 1991 14,967 0.28% 8 0.01%
Victim Was Child of Boyfriend/Girlfriend 1991 13,662 0.25% 2 0.00%
Victim Was Grandchild 1991 9,814 0.18% 0 0.00%
Victim Was Step-Sibling (Stepbrother Or Stepsister) 1991 4,775 0.09% 13 0.02%
Victim Was Babysittee (The Baby) 1991 2,498 0.05% 2 0.00%
Victim Was Cohabitant 2022 17 0.00% 0 0.00%
Victim Was Foster Child 2023 2 0.00% 0 0.00%
Victim Was Foster Parent 2023 2 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total
5,386,326 100% 85,313 100%

We also know the relationship between victim and offender when the victim is a law enforcement officer. As shown in Table ??, most of the time the officer did not know the offender, with 58.9% of victimizations being this relationship type. This is followed by 18.7% where the officer knew the offender, including if they were familiar with the person by arresting or stopping them previously. In about 18.5% we do not know the relationship as it is unknown and in 3.2% the officer and the offender were acquaintances. There are also a number of unlikely (and some impossible) relationships like the three in which the officer was the offender’s child and the one in which the officer was a baby who was abused by their babysitter. These seem to be clear indications that there are some data errors with this variable.

Table 15.5: The number and percent of victim relationships to offender by offense, 2023. This breakdown is only available for a subset of offenses. There can be up to 10 victim-offender relationships per victim; in this table we only use the first relationship reported. The top five most common relationships are shown, all other relationships are combined into an ‘All Other’ category.
Crime Relationship to Offender # of Offenses % of Offenses
Arson Relationship Unknown 3,384 38.88%
Arson Victim Was Stranger 1,187 13.64%
Arson Victim Was Acquaintance 857 9.85%
Arson Victim Was Otherwise Known 768 8.82%
Arson Victim Was Parent 509 5.85%
Arson All Other 1,998 22.94%
Arson Total 8,703 100%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Relationship Unknown 130,972 20.44%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Victim Was Stranger 110,612 17.26%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 86,718 13.53%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Victim Was Acquaintance 72,366 11.29%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Victim Was Otherwise Known 54,343 8.48%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault All Other 185,872 28.99%
Assault Offenses - Aggravated Assault Total 640,883 100%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Victim Was Stranger 110,982 17.47%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Relationship Unknown 100,315 15.79%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Victim Was Acquaintance 99,324 15.64%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Victim Was Otherwise Known 72,784 11.46%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 40,247 6.34%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation All Other 211,541 33.32%
Assault Offenses - Intimidation Total 635,193 100%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 382,337 18.24%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Victim Was Acquaintance 232,009 11.07%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Victim Was Stranger 226,920 10.83%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Relationship Unknown 205,105 9.79%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Victim Was Otherwise Known 194,410 9.28%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault All Other 855,156 40.8%
Assault Offenses - Simple Assault Total 2,095,937 100%
Bribery Victim Was Stranger 92 29.87%
Bribery Victim Was Otherwise Known 48 15.58%
Bribery Relationship Unknown 46 14.94%
Bribery Victim Was Acquaintance 31 10.06%
Bribery Victim Was Ex-Spouse 19 6.17%
Bribery All Other 72 23.36%
Bribery Total 308 100%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Relationship Unknown 79,200 48.71%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Victim Was Stranger 38,700 23.80%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Victim Was Acquaintance 11,187 6.88%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Victim Was Otherwise Known 8,708 5.36%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 6,076 3.74%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering All Other 18,740 11.53%
Burglary/Breaking And Entering Total 162,611 100%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Relationship Unknown 11,272 47.62%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Victim Was Stranger 6,933 29.29%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Victim Was Acquaintance 1,364 5.76%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Victim Was Otherwise Known 1,155 4.88%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Victim Was Parent 392 1.66%
Counterfeiting/Forgery All Other 2,557 10.78%
Counterfeiting/Forgery Total 23,673 100%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Relationship Unknown 125,739 38.32%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Victim Was Stranger 53,892 16.43%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Victim Was Acquaintance 26,496 8.08%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Victim Was Otherwise Known 23,036 7.02%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 19,365 5.90%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property All Other 79,580 24.26%
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Total 328,108 100%
Embezzlement Victim Was Employer 799 19.95%
Embezzlement Victim Was Acquaintance 580 14.48%
Embezzlement Relationship Unknown 573 14.30%
Embezzlement Victim Was Otherwise Known 447 11.16%
Embezzlement Victim Was Stranger 405 10.11%
Embezzlement All Other 1,202 29.99%
Embezzlement Total 4,006 100%
Extortion/Blackmail Relationship Unknown 3,999 52.53%
Extortion/Blackmail Victim Was Stranger 1,741 22.87%
Extortion/Blackmail Victim Was Acquaintance 715 9.39%
Extortion/Blackmail Victim Was Otherwise Known 425 5.58%
Extortion/Blackmail Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 226 2.97%
Extortion/Blackmail All Other 507 6.7%
Extortion/Blackmail Total 7,613 100%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Relationship Unknown 13,475 46.29%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Victim Was Stranger 5,746 19.74%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Victim Was Acquaintance 2,428 8.34%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Victim Was Otherwise Known 1,626 5.59%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Victim Was Parent 1,256 4.31%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud All Other 4,581 15.74%
Fraud Offenses - Credit Card/Atm Fraud Total 29,112 100%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Relationship Unknown 31,220 45.82%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Victim Was Stranger 17,750 26.05%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Victim Was Acquaintance 6,011 8.82%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Victim Was Otherwise Known 5,257 7.72%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Victim Was Friend 1,234 1.81%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game All Other 6,665 9.78%
Fraud Offenses - False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game Total 68,137 100%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Relationship Unknown 656 47.13%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Victim Was Stranger 225 16.16%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Victim Was Acquaintance 113 8.12%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 100 7.18%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Victim Was Otherwise Known 91 6.54%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion All Other 207 14.88%
Fraud Offenses - Hacking/Computer Invasion Total 1,392 100%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Relationship Unknown 30,814 65.57%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Victim Was Stranger 8,814 18.76%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Victim Was Acquaintance 1,331 2.83%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Victim Was Otherwise Known 1,210 2.57%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Victim Was Sibling (Brother Or Sister) 1,082 2.30%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft All Other 3,741 7.97%
Fraud Offenses - Identity Theft Total 46,992 100%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Relationship Unknown 8,505 51.08%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Victim Was Stranger 3,844 23.09%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Victim Was Sibling (Brother Or Sister) 1,278 7.68%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Victim Was Acquaintance 697 4.19%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Victim Was Otherwise Known 677 4.07%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation All Other 1,648 9.89%
Fraud Offenses - Impersonation Total 16,649 100%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Relationship Unknown 236 45.83%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Victim Was Acquaintance 54 10.49%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Victim Was Otherwise Known 48 9.32%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Victim Was Stranger 47 9.13%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Victim Was Friend 24 4.66%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud All Other 106 20.58%
Fraud Offenses - Welfare Fraud Total 515 100%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Relationship Unknown 3,694 52.85%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Victim Was Stranger 1,701 24.34%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Victim Was Acquaintance 452 6.47%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Victim Was Otherwise Known 370 5.29%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Victim Was Parent 176 2.52%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud All Other 596 8.52%
Fraud Offenses - Wire Fraud Total 6,989 100%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Relationship Unknown 373 24.35%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Victim Was Acquaintance 356 23.24%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Victim Was Stranger 274 17.89%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Victim Was Otherwise Known 200 13.05%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 106 6.92%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts All Other 223 14.57%
Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts Total 1,532 100%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Relationship Unknown 183 36.53%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Victim Was Acquaintance 96 19.16%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Victim Was Stranger 81 16.17%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Victim Was Otherwise Known 48 9.58%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Victim Was Employee 29 5.79%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude All Other 64 12.78%
Human Trafficking - Involuntary Servitude Total 501 100%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Victim Was Stranger 285 42.04%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Relationship Unknown 155 22.86%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Victim Was Acquaintance 71 10.47%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Victim Was Otherwise Known 71 10.47%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Victim Was Friend 15 2.21%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime All Other 81 11.95%
Justifiable Homicide - Not A Crime Total 678 100%
Kidnapping/Abduction Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 13,924 29.66%
Kidnapping/Abduction Relationship Unknown 4,577 9.75%
Kidnapping/Abduction Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 4,304 9.17%
Kidnapping/Abduction Victim Was Stranger 3,964 8.44%
Kidnapping/Abduction Victim Was Spouse 3,906 8.32%
Kidnapping/Abduction All Other 16,271 34.66%
Kidnapping/Abduction Total 46,946 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Relationship Unknown 155,863 49.01%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Victim Was Stranger 69,009 21.70%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Victim Was Acquaintance 27,241 8.57%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Victim Was Otherwise Known 17,341 5.45%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Victim Was Friend 6,820 2.14%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny All Other 41,728 13.14%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - All Other Larceny Total 318,002 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Relationship Unknown 4,386 51.20%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Victim Was Stranger 2,717 31.72%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Victim Was Acquaintance 522 6.09%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Victim Was Otherwise Known 251 2.93%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 116 1.35%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking All Other 574 6.69%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Pocket-Picking Total 8,566 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Victim Was Stranger 2,185 41.86%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Relationship Unknown 2,181 41.78%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Victim Was Acquaintance 268 5.13%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Victim Was Otherwise Known 141 2.70%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 101 1.93%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching All Other 344 6.61%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Purse-Snatching Total 5,220 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Victim Was Stranger 12,151 58.10%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Relationship Unknown 7,490 35.81%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Victim Was Otherwise Known 459 2.19%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Victim Was Acquaintance 417 1.99%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Victim Was Employee 103 0.49%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting All Other 294 1.39%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Shoplifting Total 20,914 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Relationship Unknown 38,177 46.22%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Victim Was Stranger 15,605 18.89%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Victim Was Acquaintance 8,397 10.17%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Victim Was Otherwise Known 5,573 6.75%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Victim Was Friend 2,391 2.89%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building All Other 12,462 15.09%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Building Total 82,605 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Relationship Unknown 317 54.84%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Victim Was Stranger 205 35.47%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Victim Was Acquaintance 20 3.46%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Victim Was Otherwise Known 16 2.77%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Victim Was Other Family Member 4 0.69%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device All Other 16 2.76%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Coin-Operated Machine Or Device Total 578 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Relationship Unknown 127,318 73.41%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Victim Was Stranger 37,404 21.57%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Victim Was Acquaintance 2,530 1.46%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Victim Was Otherwise Known 2,001 1.15%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 882 0.51%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle All Other 3,300 1.9%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft From Motor Vehicle Total 173,435 100%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Relationship Unknown 36,681 83.48%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Victim Was Stranger 5,138 11.69%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Victim Was Acquaintance 635 1.45%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Victim Was Otherwise Known 434 0.99%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Victim Was Ex-Relationship (Ex-Boyfriend/Ex-Girlfriend) 249 0.57%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories All Other 803 1.81%
Larceny/Theft Offenses - Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Total 43,940 100%
Motor Vehicle Theft Relationship Unknown 118,493 62.46%
Motor Vehicle Theft Victim Was Stranger 38,363 20.22%
Motor Vehicle Theft Victim Was Acquaintance 9,676 5.10%
Motor Vehicle Theft Victim Was Otherwise Known 5,018 2.65%
Motor Vehicle Theft Victim Was Parent 4,173 2.20%
Motor Vehicle Theft All Other 13,990 7.37%
Motor Vehicle Theft Total 189,713 100%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Relationship Unknown 5,029 39.02%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Victim Was Acquaintance 2,057 15.96%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Victim Was Stranger 1,464 11.36%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Victim Was Otherwise Known 931 7.22%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 684 5.31%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter All Other 2,724 21.13%
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter Total 12,889 100%
Negligent Manslaughter Victim Was Stranger 713 36.89%
Negligent Manslaughter Relationship Unknown 366 18.93%
Negligent Manslaughter Victim Was Friend 199 10.29%
Negligent Manslaughter Victim Was Acquaintance 193 9.98%
Negligent Manslaughter Victim Was Child 140 7.24%
Negligent Manslaughter All Other 322 16.68%
Negligent Manslaughter Total 1,933 100%
Robbery Victim Was Stranger 69,531 43.00%
Robbery Relationship Unknown 61,648 38.13%
Robbery Victim Was Acquaintance 11,434 7.07%
Robbery Victim Was Otherwise Known 5,585 3.45%
Robbery Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 4,053 2.51%
Robbery All Other 9,436 5.82%
Robbery Total 161,687 100%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Victim Was Acquaintance 16,449 19.72%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Victim Was Otherwise Known 10,379 12.44%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Relationship Unknown 9,653 11.57%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Victim Was Stranger 8,974 10.76%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Victim Was Child 7,701 9.23%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) All Other 30,267 36.29%
Sex Offenses - Fondling (Indecent Liberties/Child Molest) Total 83,423 100%
Sex Offenses - Incest Victim Was Child 445 36.78%
Sex Offenses - Incest Victim Was Sibling (Brother Or Sister) 325 26.86%
Sex Offenses - Incest Victim Was Other Family Member 222 18.35%
Sex Offenses - Incest Victim Was Grandchild 48 3.97%
Sex Offenses - Incest Victim Was Step-Child 43 3.55%
Sex Offenses - Incest All Other 127 10.52%
Sex Offenses - Incest Total 1,210 100%
Sex Offenses - Rape Victim Was Acquaintance 16,663 23.78%
Sex Offenses - Rape Relationship Unknown 9,492 13.55%
Sex Offenses - Rape Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 7,271 10.38%
Sex Offenses - Rape Victim Was Otherwise Known 6,445 9.20%
Sex Offenses - Rape Victim Was Friend 5,248 7.49%
Sex Offenses - Rape All Other 24,943 35.61%
Sex Offenses - Rape Total 70,062 100%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Victim Was Acquaintance 1,271 19.24%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Relationship Unknown 875 13.24%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Victim Was Otherwise Known 842 12.74%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Victim Was Child 550 8.32%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Victim Was Other Family Member 518 7.84%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object All Other 2,551 38.6%
Sex Offenses - Sexual Assault With An Object Total 6,607 100%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Victim Was Acquaintance 3,576 20.08%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Relationship Unknown 2,425 13.62%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Victim Was Otherwise Known 2,020 11.34%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Victim Was Other Family Member 1,685 9.46%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Victim Was Stranger 1,238 6.95%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy All Other 6,864 38.55%
Sex Offenses - Sodomy Total 17,808 100%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Victim Was Acquaintance 1,787 24.71%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Victim Was Boyfriend/Girlfriend 1,611 22.28%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Victim Was Otherwise Known 799 11.05%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Relationship Unknown 747 10.33%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Victim Was Friend 554 7.66%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape All Other 1,734 23.97%
Sex Offenses - Statutory Rape Total 7,232 100%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Relationship Unknown 27,746 51.36%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Victim Was Stranger 21,070 39.00%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Victim Was Acquaintance 1,542 2.85%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Victim Was Otherwise Known 1,281 2.37%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Victim Was Parent 471 0.87%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) All Other 1,914 3.53%
Stolen Property Offenses (Receiving, Selling, Etc.) Total 54,024 100%

15.5 Aggravated assault and homicide circumstances

In cases of aggravated assault or homicide we have some information about the motive of the offender. There can be up to two motives, what NIBRS calls circumstances, for each of these offenses. Table 15.6 shows all of the possible circumstances in the data, and shows the frequency only of the first circumstance. The most common circumstance is that there was an argument, and this accounts for 42.7% of these victims. The next most common is 24% which had unknown circumstances followed by 18.7% with “other” circumstances. The next most common group is “lovers’ quarrel” which the FBI relabeled as “domestic violence” beginning in 2019. This group accounts for 9.4% of victims. Assault on law enforcement officers is the next most common group at 2.8% of victims. All other groups are less common than 2% of victims.

Table 15.6: The distribution of circumstances for aggravated assault and homicides, 2023.
Circumstance Crime Category First Year # of Victims % of Victims
Argument Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 294,313 38.57%
Unknown Circumstances Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 184,583 24.19%
Other Circumstances Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 143,124 18.75%
Domestic Violence (Historically Called Lovers Triangle/Quarrel) Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 99,067 12.98%
Assault On Law Enforcement Officer(s) Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 22,595 2.96%
Other Felony Involved Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 9,620 1.26%
Gangland (Organized Crime Involvement) Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 3,066 0.40%
Drug Dealing Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 2,136 0.28%
Juvenile Gang Aggravated Assault/Murder 1991 1,905 0.25%
Other Negligent Killings Negligent Manslaughter 1991 1,670 0.22%
Criminal Killed By Private Citizen Justifiable Homicide 1991 443 0.06%
Other Negligent Weapon Handling Negligent Manslaughter 1991 298 0.04%
Criminal Killed By Police Officer Justifiable Homicide 1992 248 0.03%
Child Playing With Weapon Negligent Manslaughter 1991 38 0.00%
Mercy Killing (Not Applicable To Aggravated Assault) Aggravated Assault/Murder 1993 16 0.00%
Gun-Cleaning Accident Negligent Manslaughter 1992 10 0.00%
Hunting Accident Negligent Manslaughter 1991 2 0.00%
Total Aggravated Assault/Murder
763,134 100%

15.6 Justifiable homicide circumstance

We know a little bit more in cases of justifiable homicides. Here, we know the circumstances behind the homicide. Figure 15.5 shows the circumstance breakdown for all 308 justifiable homicides reported in 2019. The most common reason, at 34.4% of justifiable homicides is because the offender attacked a civilian. In 21% of justifiable homicides the offender attacked a police officer and was killed by the same officer. In 6.5% the offender attacked a police officer and was killed by a different officer. This is followed by 28% being killed during the commission of a crime. In 4.9% of justifiable homicides, the circumstance is unknown. 3.6% had the offender killed while fleeing from a crime and 1% were killed while resisting arrest.

The distribution of circumstances for justifiable homicides (N = 308 in 2022 for all agencies reporting).

Figure 15.5: The distribution of circumstances for justifiable homicides (N = 308 in 2022 for all agencies reporting).

15.7 Demographics

As only people have demographics, these variables only apply when the victim is an individual or a law enforcement officer. The demographics here cover victim age, race, sex, ethnicity, and whether they live in the jurisdiction of the agency where they were victimized. For the following graphs I will be using all victims, not separating by if they are an “individual” or a law enforcement officer.

15.7.1 Residence status

This segment tells us if the victim is a resident of the jurisdiction they were victimized in. This basically means whether or not they live in the city where the crime happened. It has nothing to do with residence status or citizenship status in the United States. The FBI defines residence as their legal permanent address though it is unclear how that is handled for people without this information (though this is far less likely to be a problem here than for arrestees which also report this variable) and when people live permanently in a different spot than their legal address. This variable is useful when trying to figure out if victims are those who live in the area or live outside of it, such as tourists or workers who live nearby. Since crime rates are usually crimes per residents in the jurisdiction, this can be used to determine how reliable that denominator is. If many victims are residents then it makes much more sense than if few are.

Table ?? shows the residence status for all individual or law enforcement officer victims. The vast majority, 67%, of victims are residents of the jurisdiction where they were victimized while 12.5% were not residents. 20.4% of victims have an unknown resident status.

One proposed measure to improve policing is to require police officers (or at least newly hired officers) live in the city where they work. The idea here is that people will do a better job if it affects the place they consider home.97 Luckily for us, NIBRS includes law enforcement officers in their measure of whether the victim lives in the jurisdiction where they were victimized. Since law enforcement officers are only recorded to be victims when on the job, this is one measure of where officers live.

The share of victims by resident status in the reporting agency's jurisdiction, 1991-2023.

Figure 15.6: The share of victims by resident status in the reporting agency’s jurisdiction, 1991-2023.

The share of victims by resident status in the reporting agency's jurisdiction for law enforcement officer victims, 1991-2023.

Figure 15.7: The share of victims by resident status in the reporting agency’s jurisdiction for law enforcement officer victims, 1991-2023.

15.7.2 Age

This variable is the age of the victim when the crime occurred, regardless of when they reported the crime. Age is given as how many years old the victim is, with a few exceptions. Victims older than 98 are grouped together as “over 98 years old” while victims younger than 1 years old are broken down into “under 24 hours (neonate)”, “1 to 6 days old (newborn)”, and “between 6 days and 1 year old (baby)”. About 1.4% of victim ages are unknown.

Figure 15.8 shows the percent of victims at each age available. This is pretty similar to the age of offenders shown in Figure 14.1 with a peak in the mid to late 20s with a long decline after. The most common victim age is 27 followed by 28, 29, and 30. Relative to offender ages, there are far more young victims. About 2.8% of victims, or 145k victims, in 2019 were aged 14 or younger. However, remember that this is for all victims of any crime so age trends may differ by which crime you are looking at.

The age of all victims, 2023.

Figure 15.8: The age of all victims, 2023.

The mean and median age of victims, 1991-2023.

Figure 15.9: The mean and median age of victims, 1991-2023.

The percent of victim's age that is unknown, 1991-2023.

Figure 15.10: The percent of victim’s age that is unknown, 1991-2023.

15.7.3 Sex

As with the Offender and the Arrestee Segments, we know the sex of the victim. The only choices are female, male, and unknown sex. There is no option for transgender or any other identify. Since the victim can tell the police their sex, and the police can see them clearly in most cases (though this may not be true if the victim reports a crime over the phone by calling 911 but then does not stay to be interviewed) so is more reliable than in the Offender Segment which may include guesses about the offender. The most common victim sex is female at 50.8% of victims, followed closely by male at 48.4%. Only about 0.8% of victims have an unknown sex. It is interesting that female victims are so common since most criminology research finds that male victims are so common. I think this is likely due to criminologists primarily focusing on murder and index violent crimes as their measure of crime, which ignores many other crimes.98

The share of victims by sex, 1991-2023.

Figure 15.11: The share of victims by sex, 1991-2023.

15.7.4 Race

For each victim we also know their race. The only possible races are White, Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. These categories are mutually exclusive so people cannot be labeled as mixed race, they must be put into one of the categories. Since the police generally can talk to the victim it is possible that they ask the victim what race they are rather than just guess based on appearance. However, this may differ based on agency and the officer taking the report so may be inconsistent.

Figure ?? shows the breakdown in victims by race. Most victims are White at about 67.8% of victims, followed by Black victims at 23.4%. 5.6% have an unknown race. The remaining victims are made up of 1.9% Asian victims, 0,7% American Indian/Alaskan Native victims, and 0.5% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

The share of victims by race, 1991-2023.

Figure 15.12: The share of victims by race, 1991-2023.

15.7.5 Ethnicity

The final demographics variable for victims is their ethnicity, which is whether they are Hispanic or not. Ethnicity is an optional variable so agencies do not have to ever report it. This means that some agencies never report it, some always report it, and some report it only sometimes. The “sometimes report” agencies are probably the most dangerous to use since it is unclear when they report it, which could lead to biased data (such as only reporting it when the suspect is confirmed Hispanic or not, which may not be how other agencies define it).

There’s also the question of reliability of the ethnicity data. Someone being Hispanic or not is likely just what the arrestees calls themselves or what the arresting officer perceives them to be. Both are important ways of measuring ethnicity but get at different things. Perception is more important for studies of bias, self-identification for differences among groups of people such as arrest rates by ethnicity. And the subjectivity of who is classified as Hispanic means that this measurement may differ by agency and by officer, making it imprecise.

Figure ?? shows the breakdown in arrests by victim ethnicity for all victims in 2019. Most arrestees - 62.2% - are not Hispanic. Only 10.5% are reported to be Hispanic but a much higher percent of arrestees - 27.2% - have an unknown ethnicity. Given that over a quarter of victims do not have ethnicity data, if you would like to use this variable I recommend that you carefully examine the data to ensure that the agencies you are looking at (if you do not use all agencies in the data) have a much higher reporting rate.

The share of victims by ethnicity, 1991-2023.

Figure 15.13: The share of victims by ethnicity, 1991-2023.


  1. Businesses may have some form of demographic information if you think about demographics of the owners or managers. However, that information is not available. If the business was targeted due to the owner’s demographics then that may be considered a hate crime and be reported in the Offense Segment.↩︎

  2. Since crime is generally concentrated in a small number of impoverished parts of town, and police likely would not live in these parts, this probably would not be very effective.↩︎

  3. Murder and other violent crimes are mainly men hurting/killing other men, except in domestic violence which is primarily men hurting/killing women.↩︎