A perpetrator of vandalism, whose victim happens to be Jewish or black or gay, (or perhaps black Jewish and gay) who smashed out every window in the victim’s house and/or car; did he perpetrate a “hate” crime or a destructive property crime or both?  How do we draw the line as to what constitutes a hate crime? Are there not those who would contend that just by virtue of the perpetrator being a southern white male for example, that his vandalizing the property of a black Jewish homosexual would automatically be considered a hate crime against the race/faith/sexual orientation of the victim? There are blatantly obvious cases where the motivation of the perpetrator is clear. However, there are far more cases where there are no clear indications of bias/hate, but circumstances are such (as in the example above) that the crime will be investigated as a hate crime. Is this not a slippery slope with potentially dangerous unintended consequences? There can and will be cases in which someone will commit a crime like that I mentioned above, who has no animosity towards or hatred of any particular group, but who felt like being destructive. There will be cases in which people are punished not just for a crime they deserve punishment for, but for a crime of “hate” as well. With federal involvement, we cannot underestimate the potential for political opportunism, selective enforcement and other abuses that are the trademarks of federal government “justice”.