No sure, I know what the difference is. My point is, if somebody deliberately murders somebody else, why complicate it by having to prove that they planned it in advance? That's just about what was going on in the murderer's mind anyway and just complicates matters.

Isn't this similar to the argument you're making here?

The equivocation in a speech is more about free speech than about hate. And hate speech laws are a minefield that it is difficult to litigate beacuse protecting people's right to say things is important. Speech is supposed to be legal. Murder isn't.

In the case of Tamir Rice, I personally wouldn't argue that it was a hate crime. I think Tamir's race may well have been a factor, but it's pretty much impossible to prove that or say to what extent.

But in the end what happened? It wasn't tried as hate crime, Loehmann was found to have acted "reasonably", and even though he was found to have hidden details about his mental state when he was hired by the police, I believe he ended up getting hired by a different police department.

So I'm not sure what point you're making with Rice here. Yes, Loehmann shot a child at point blank range, the case wasn't complicated by accusations of a hate crime, and he still wasn't convicted.