He asked if you see a difference in community and safety between beating someone up for being black a specific motivation) and someone beating someone up for stiffing them on a poker bet (a different specific motivation).
You responded by comparing two random viscious attacks....one because they are black and one because they are just walking by.
That’s not the same thing as his question. His proposal didn’t involve two random attacks with unknown motivations. His question involved to specific attacks with specific motivations. I’d like to see you address the specific motivations in his question instead of two random attacks of unspecified motivation.
What started this debate for me was you saying you really don’t understand hate crime designations...not Castro’s Tweet.
But I will address his tweet since you asked.
No Castro isn’t implying that if it wasn’t a racial and homophobic attack then justice does not to be as fast, IMO. He’s basically stating that it needs to be as fast as attacks on white, straight people. He’s stating a belief or fear that justice might not be as fast as it otherwise might be if it wasn’t racially or homophobically motivated because of systemic racism and homophobia. I don’t have or agree with that belief or fear, but kinda understand why some might feel that way.
Two random vicious attacks are the same comparison. In Pilts example it was a crime motivated by racial hate and another crime to get someone back at a poker debt. Both are assumably preplanned , both because they are mad at the person, and both harm the victim.
A horrific crime committed against a person because he happened to walk by is not less horrific than a crime committed because of someone race, religion, or sexual orientation. They are both bad and justice should be blind to the differences of the victim.
To your Castro answer: And I kinda understand why some feel that a designation for a hate crime incremental to other crimes is needed, but I don’t have to agree that way.