The victim suffered a possible skull fracture but was talking to police early this morning and believes he was targeted because he’s gay.
Like muzzies, sodomites are skilled in taqiya. Based on previous incidents of this type, they claim they're "targeted" to cover up, for lack of a better phrase, a "lover's" spat. Occam's Razor shows this is invariably the case for these so-called hate crimes. The logical default position is to treat these as false flags until proved otherwise.
Occams Razor is a decision making and determinative tool, it is not to be confused with evidence.
Again, you may be right.
I simply disagree with espousing opinion, regardless of validity (or invalidity for that matter), as fact.
I don’t like it from ACC/AGW crowd or that BLM/HUDS hucksters, and I don’t like it here. Call it a pet peeve.
I don’t disagree with being suspicious of such claims. I just like actual evidence to debunk them.
Without taking any position on the substantive matter; I would like to comment on your use of Occam’s Razor.
Occam’s Razor stipulates that, where there are competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is usually the best choice. In this case, that would be that an unknown assailant hit the guy for an unknown reason. Then, there’s the hypothesis that it was a hate crime — which involves an assumption. Your hypothesis involves the several more assumptions; as you, yourself, point out in your post #13.
I’m with BlueNgold on this.