but whether you agree and now retract your agreement is meaningless, fact remains it is and that wont change.
the integrity based thing now would be to simply admit the answer was yes to your question and your statement claiming otherwise was wrong
2.) im not i simply understand the facts
3.) false there is no crime based on thought
if assault you and get charge with assault, that is action, if its found out later that i wanted to kill you i know also get charged with attempted murder
its based on MOTIVE and REASONING of the CRIME/ACTION and in this case its not a hate crime as long as my motive for wanting to kill you or assault you doesnt fit
and in the case of hate crime its also based on MOTIVE and reasoning of my ACTION, not the thought alone
its action, not thought, thought is legal
1.) there is no victim of the "hate crime" the hate crime was done to property
2.) the arson of a building based on bigotry of the christian religion, pure definition of hate crime
3.) already said he stated so
facts win again
why do you just make stuff up?
2.) reread number 3
this is getting easier and easier to show facts prove you wrong
so lets see what you learned
your question was "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is YES as proven by law and the definition of the crime
do you still disagree with this fact? yes or no