Seems like he could pursue both though. Why is it either or?
Louisiana law is a bit different and I have no experience with it. However, prosecutors usually go after the easiest charge to prove with the best sentence and ignore or don’t pursue other charges.
From a cursory review of the facts presented, this could be construed as a hate crime. However, there is little doubt this was a violent assault. Therefore, the prosecutor can embroil himself in a flawed law where hate must be proven or he can simply prove that an assault took place for a much bigger sentence.
Why bother with “could be” and cloud the trial when “he did it” results in a huge sentence? I would bet the “hate crime” would run concurrent to the better charge so there is no benefit beyond a political point and that is not the job of a prosecutor as many of us pointed out in the recent travesty.