The 'you' was not a literal you. Rephrase that to 'the law is still assuming'. I would have thought you were intelligent to see that without explanation.
I'm well aware that almost everything you write on here is figurative language and not literal, but don't blame your blatant misuse of the pronoun "you" instead of a more appropriate pronoun like 'one' or 'they' or even a noun like 'the law,' as you have suggested, on MY lack of comprehension of the English Language.
And again, there is no judgment on the current state of the law in my answer and thus no premise put forth. I was just letting you know that you are misrepresenting the current state of the law. You may think it impossible, and that's fine, but that does not mean that the law does not exist, nor that because you don't believe it to be possible, that it doesn't apply to you.
It is not about comprehension of the language it is about recognizing the application of the language.
Your o/p stated two situations and said one was and another was not a hate crime. The implied premise is that there is a difference between the two situations and that (in the case of the second) that there is a way to determine the reason a person commits a given act. You simply made statements that specifically stated that the reason someone commits a given act determines if it is a hate crime. I do understand that you have made no judgement on the merit of this absurd laws BTW.
When you boil it all down though, we are more or less saying the same thing. These law exists that treats some groups of society differently. IMHO this is an extremely bad thing for our government/laws to do. Why is it any worse to beat the crap out of a (pick whatever protected group you want) person than it is to (lets say) do the same to a tall person, someone with green eyes, or anything else? When you start making lists of protected people, it by default states that the people not in those groups are not afforded the same protection and for lack of better term are fair game and on their own. It is just utter silliness that we have laws that not only selectively protect groups (who BTW say they are fighting to be treated equally, irony there big time) but also assume that it is even possible to determine the thought process and reasoning of the person behind the act.
