All that's required to establish a "hate crime" crime case is for a white individual to beat up a black or gay person. But that's neither evidence of racism or hatred of homosexuals. So no, it's clearly present. It's intuited.
...You're drunk aren't you?
I've been in fights where I was being an ass and someone called me on it. I earned those, fair and square.
I've been mugged at random on the street.
I've also been in fights where someone had to step up on behalf a woman that was indeed being victimized.
And, finally, I've been in fights where someone felt the need to educate me about how sick and twisted I was for being a fag.
I know the difference in each occasion, and I'd never attempt to overlay one on the other. The last one was clearly what it was.
If there is a problem with such an attempt to exploit the law...it's not the fault of the law. The problem is something else. The proposed idea that there will be those who will abuse it doesn't negate the need for the law.
And yes, I may indeed be on my way to being drunk. Would I be here at all if that weren't the case?
