RolStoppable said:
That post made my head spin. I don't know what you are arguing. Here's a recent example: The act of terrorism in Berlin a couple of weeks ago had the police using the word "allegedly" in relation to the culprit even after they had already secured evidence in the form of legal papers and fingerprints left in the cockpit of the truck, as if there was still room for doubt at that point of the investigation. If the culprit belongs to a minority, there's a tendency to refrain or to hesitate from saying how things are. In the case of this thread, there is video evidence for much of the crime and said evidence leaves very little room for doubt that it was a hate crime, unless the legal definitions in Illinois differ greatly from what is commonly regarded as a hate crime. |
I'm glad I could do the same to you for a change :)
That truck could have been stolen, as for Illinois, no clue. There's kidnap and multiple charges of assault anyway. This is from Illinois
https://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/2-421a(01-14).pdf
Before an offense can be reported as a hate crime, sufficient objective facts must be present to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude the offender’s actions were motivated by bias. This oftentimes requires an admission by the offender that the motivation for the offense was a personal bias against the victim’s bias group.
Seems the offenders have to say they picked him out specifically and not just as an easy target.
