My personal view of a hate crime is:

What is the alleged perpetrator's mens rea (mental state/intent)? If it can be shown that the intent was to cause harm/kill the victim because of who they are out of hate, then yes. That would a hate crime.

In other words, it's not that big of a deal if you kill someone you don't hate.

Was that directed at me or KFC?

A more appropriate question is:  "Does it matter?"  The victims are no less dead than if they had been coddled to death by over-doting loving black perps.  Adding more punishment to a crime because of what the perpetrator is THINKING at the time?  That's Big Brother stuff.  Just fry the crooks and who cares what they were thinking...they were obviously NOT thinking about being productive, responsible, law-abiding members of society.

KFC-

A Hate Crime is when harm has been carried out against someone explicitly because of their race, political or religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc.

Now, as with all things in life (and you should know this better than anyone else!) there is the letter of the law.... the nuts and bolts... and then there is the spirit of the law.... the intent that the law was created for in the first place.

The intent behind hate crimes legislation is to prevent another holocaust, simply put. Another Rwanda, another Armenian genocide. 

If a group of people know that they can murder a fellow because he is Jewish, or Lutheran, or perhaps because he supports the Green party, and have it be treated the same as any other crime, it becomes much easier to promote and foment their movement. Murders and rapes happen every day. Absolutely they're terrible, yes, and need to be prosecuted and investigated to the full extent of the law.

Murders and attacks carried out against someone because of the fact that they belong to a specific cultural, religious, political or racial group however, have the potential of turning into lots of attacks targeted at that group, which then becomes one of the basic ingredients for a genocide.

Now, where things get iffy is in the execution and application of hate crimes legislation. I fully agree that there have been times when the police and prosecutors over-stepped their bounds far beyond reason. But, hate crimes legislation have also done a lot of good, and the real kicker?

They exist for the protection of EVERYONE!

Jewish groups in Canada have had a pretty good record of using hate-crimes laws for their own protection, in situations where, for example, a synagogue might get fire-bombed. Now, that is a blatantly obvious example, it'd be pretty hard for the guys who did it (with swastika tattoos) to say that they just felt like fire-bombing that synagogue for the heck of it. No, chances are pretty good they did it explicitly to target Jews and their faith.

Another blatantly obvious example would be a homosexual fellow dragged behind a truck for a couple of miles and then strung out in a barbed-wire fence in a farmers field. While his murder is no more or less horrific or terrible than any other murder, if it turns out that his killers targeted him because he was gay, then that too is a hate crime.

Where we run into controversy, is, what if his killers had no idea he was gay but actually did it because he owed them money and they wanted to make an example out of him? (as can happen with drug dealers) In this case, the police or prosecutors have to prove that the attack was motivated because of his affiliation with a specific group, and if not, then it's not a hate crime.

At the end of the day, if someone were to break into your home and try to kill you or your family, simply because you are a card carrying member of a political party, are part of a specific religion, or even because of the color of your skin, then that too would be a hate crime being carried out against you.

Ultimately, if discriminatory behavious towards specific groups isn't jumped on by society, it becomes a seed that can bloom into a genocide. In Rwanda, roving gangs of mostly civilians on foot, armed with machetes achieved a greater rate of killing than the Nazis were able to do with their industrialized death camps (It was something like 800,000 estimated killed in less than 100 days)

don't yall get it? these guys deliberately sought out a 'christian' girl. 

It would not be treated as any other crime, it would be treated as murder. The penalty for murder is death(or it should be). If someone murders another, they get the chair! It don't mater who got killed or why.

I understand that's the political definition but I have to maintain any crime can be considered hateful. 

Ask any mother, when she sees a youngster slap, kick or do harm to another youngster, why she says to him "don't be so hateful." 

When you start labeling some acts as hateful and some just crimeful acts, there's bound to be some assumptions made with subjectivity being involved. 

For instance when the black professor yelled "race" when arrested by the white cop.  He was making an assumption that he was being treated unfairly because of racial tension when all along this Professor's job dealt with this subject all day long making him anything but objective in the matter.  His mind and career were consumed with this subject.  Now if they both went before a black judge (like an Obama) guess what?  The cop could be considered hateful for doing what he did.  Where's the proof? 

I say, punish the crime not people's thoughts. 

That's it in a nutshell.

And you're absolutely right. Hate crime legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a crime was 'hateful', but has everything to do with whether or not the crime was carried out for the sole purpose of targeting a specific cultural, religious, or political group.

That's not the point of hate crimes legislation. There would have to be hard proof that the cop was being discriminatory towards the professor explicitly because the professor was black, and not because of the confusion of arriving on-scene suspecting a break-in.

And again, I agree with you. Hate crimes legislation aren't about trying to control your thoughts, but rather to try and kill one of the worst forms of cancer society has ever known while it's still in it's early stages. And that cancer is when society fragments into different segments that then start trying to kill each other (like when the hutu militias declared that all tutsis were "cockroaches" and needed to be wiped out in Rwanda, thus leading to neighbors hacking each other to death with machetes)

Look, crime is going to be around with us until the end of time (or second coming, or armageddon, or whatever other end-scenario you may believe in) As a society, we will always have to deal with murders, rapes, robberies, vandalism, etc.

It's nice to sit back and say that any murderer should be executed, but that then paints a whole lot of folks with a very broad brush. If a man saw a woman getting raped in a park, and he was filled with rage and went after her attacker and killed him, technically, he's a murderer. Should he be executed or treated the same as any other murderer?

What if instead the man was out with his friends, having a few drinks and they saw a fellow walk by who was an immigrant, or maybe homosexual, and they decide they're going to have some fun and kill him.

The two crimes, while very different, both fall under the category of murder. While neither is any more or less horrific, what is important to note is that one has the capability of inflicting far more harm and damage on society in the future. And that is, when we allow specific groups to be targeted and to treat it just the same as any other crime.

Because if folks understand that killing someone because he's black, or white, or arabic, will be treated the same as any other murder, they have at least a starting point for their movement. During the nazis days of brown-shirt thuggery, before they had officially come into power, attacks against Jews were treated the same as any other crime by a largely indifferent police force that was already over-whelmed, under-staffed and infiltrated by various militias. In Weimar Germany where the depression was raging, an attack against a Jewish fellow was seen in the police eyes as just the same as an attack on anyone else. Times were tough, what can you do? Was the prevalent attitude. But, the harrassment of Jews was far more insidious as the perpetrators had the intent of targetting the entire Jewish population. And once they got into power they went after anyone not to their liking..... gays, political dissidents, other minorities, it culminated in state-sponsored death camps that killed 11 million people.

True, but one was in defense of another. Self defense has always been a legitimate reason to avoid civil punishment.  His was the greater good for society.   The other was cold blooded murder regardless if he hated him first or not.  He murdered for no other reason than to murder.  What diff does hating him have? 

 To me it just goes back to all crime is based on hatred period.  The first man murdered out of love for the one he was protecting.  He put his own life at risk.  No greater love than one who gives his life for another.  There's  no greater hatred then one who takes another's life for purely selfish reasons. 

now here this is diff than just your average joe murdering someone he hates.  Here you have a society gone bad and you nailed it when you mentioned the word "power."  A Hate crimes bill will have no bearing on lawbreakers in control of the masses who are not only at the helm but also on a power trip, like Hitler.   No rules/laws were stopping him.  He made his own up as he went. 

If you dobut that, just take a look at our political ya-hoos now.  They believe they are above the law and do what they want as they spend (read steal) our money like there's no tomorrow.