[ReignOfError]

I wonder if the criminal damage to property (there is no statute regarding "vandalism") would have been considered a hate crime had the object of that damage and hate speech been an Islamic mosque or Islamic religious symbols?

It would and should be in that case, and it should and hopefully will be in this case. Hate crime statutes are pretty much moot in cases of murder or assault, where the penalties should be severe regardless of the motivation. But painting swastikas on a synagogue -- or an inept "Hail Satin" on a church -- is simply not the same crime as painting "Billy luvs Suzie" on a highway overpass, even if the physical act is the same.

[EODGUY]

"It would and should be in that case, and it should and hopefully will be in this case. Hate crime statutes are pretty much moot in cases of murder or assault, where the penalties should be severe regardless of the motivation. But painting swastikas on a synagogue -- or an inept "Hail Satin" on a church -- is simply not the same crime as painting "Billy luvs Suzie" on a highway overpass, even if the physical act is the same."

Point well taken.....I truly wish we had jurists who possessed the same common sense or were unwilling to pander to political correctness.

EODGUY