Conservatives

It's not MY "intent" argument, this is how the law works whether you like it or not. It's not by action to the max degree of punishment. That's why there are degrees of severity on charges.

There isn't a blanket murder charge. There isn't a blanket drug charge. You may watch TV shows where they say something like "Possession with the INTENT to distribute"? That's because there's a clear intent to the crime that has harsher punishments based on the degree.

This is also why there are manslaughter charges. You can harm someone by accident and catch a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, though if you INTENDED to harm someone, that's 1st degree manslaughter. They have different prosecutorial and sentencing guidelines based on the intent of the crime.

If a person goes through a Tesla dealership and paints Swastikas on 100 cars, they have an obvious argument that it wasn't a hate crime, they were intending to point out that a neo-nazi is running Tesla. That's not a hate crime because of the intent.

So if Pam Bondi can prove that the person who spray painted a Swastika on a specific Tesla owned by a specific Jewish person, THEN you'd have the argument that a Hate Crime has been committed.

You're also selectively reading my messages and saying I'm somehow okay with hate crimes. This is classic dipshittery and whataboutism in its dumbest form. Never said anything like that. I am explaining the law to you in a very child-like way (like people don't Trump), because you're failing to understand the difference between what is protected by free speech and hate crimes laws, and what is not. The subject matter you brought up was Swastika vandalism.

I'm not even advocating FOR vandalism of Tesla at all, I even said it was stupid, and not the right way to go about it. Pocketbook is a better target.