[Cicero]

Well, on the one hand, I think it’s good if they treat all hate crimes equally. On the other hand, I find the idea of “hate crime” questionable, especially since it is usually biased by political correctness.

If the shooters were motivated by Muslim hatred of Jews, then it should be up to the media to bring that fact out. Also for the jury to take it into account, if they choose, as a contributing factor. It would suggest that the crime was premeditated, for one thing. But in fact the media will predictably cover it up, and a liberal judge will probably instruct the jury to ignore it. That’s the problem with “hate crime”—it usually becomes such a PC matter.

White on black is hate; black on white is a result of difficult childhood. And Muslim motives are unmentionable.

[Ciexyz]

In the Pittsburgh area a few years ago, the police prosecuted a case of a black shooter targeting white victims because they were white. Multiple shootings, two deaths I believe, and the case was prosecuted as a hate crime. Perp serving life in prison. The guy let a black potential victim go free and indicated with words that he was only targeting whites.

[SJackson]

If you're saying that the "hate" element isn't an element of the crime as much as the sentencing, I agree. Other than very minor offenses like vandalism, graffiti or littering, and even those offenses usually have more serious charges.

As to jurys, there's the Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. Muslim guy who hates Jews and Israel plans an attack over a period of weeks, purchases weapons, trains with them, secrets them, then carries out his attack, killing one and wounding five. Fifteen counts of various degrees of murder and attempted murder, the jury agreed on only one. First degree murder, not guilty, hung on the rest. Who knows, maybe he'll be tried again one day.

Hate crime, not charged, but the prosecutor did bring it up publicly, which is why he was not charged with various terrorism offences. Lucky for him, those charges would have been federal.