When a hate crime isn't a hate crime

I guess it all depends on the race of the victim, doesn't it?

Here's all you need to know:

"Early Friday morning, Barbara Frische said she woke up to the sound of glass breaking inside her East Austin home.

She called police but didn't learn what had shattered the double-paned window in her 4-year-old son's room until after police arrived. Officers showed her a brick with a note attached: 'Keep Eastside Black. Keep Eastside Strong.'

'It's the first time anything like this has ever happened to me,' said Frische, who is white. She has lived in her house on 13th Street for about 10 years.

The incident doesn't fall under the hate crime category, which is a classification of a charge but not a charge itself, said Austin police Sgt. Richard Stresing. He said the charge probably would be criminal mischief and deadly conduct, both misdemeanors.

Crimes based on race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability or gender are flagged as hate crimes, Stresing said, so they can be referred to the Department of Justice. The note attached to the brick didn't include hate speech, he said."

James Taranto, at Best of the Web:

"Stresing’s explanation is confusing--and confused. There is no law against 'hate speech,' which is protected by the First Amendment unless it rises to the level of incitement or fighting words.

Further, Texas’ James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act does allow for enhanced penalties in cases of both criminal mischief and deadly conduct (the latter an offense under Title 5 of the Texas Penal Code). The Byrd Act defines a hate crime as one in which the defendant targets a victim or property 'because of the defendant’s bias or prejudice against a group identified by race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, gender, or sexual preference.'

If a suspect is caught and prosecuted, perhaps his lawyer can convince a jury that there is reasonable doubt that the crime was motivated by bias or prejudice. But the note attached to the brick would seem to be prima facie evidence of a hate crime. The police’s dismissal of that possibility is awfully odd."

Actually, it's not.

In this so-called "post racial" era of Obama, a day and age, where a disgraceful example of bad behavior by an Ivy League elitist African American scholar gets summarily rationalized as being a result of "racism", why would we expect consistency in the application of ethical, moral, and legal determination?

We all know how these "progressive" double standards work.

#