I've looked into the case, it was a deserted road and the nutter almost drove into the kids and then hit a sidewalk. The boy who was walking with them exchanged a few angry words and then he chased them with a metal
Baseball bat hitting the girl and then dragged her into his car.
Point no.1 - The road was deserted, road rage occurs when there's traffic. There was no traffic at 3/4am.
Point no.2 - The criminal drove towards the kids - was he drunk? No. There are no traces of alcohol found.
Anti- Muslim bias incidents in the United States jumped 57% in 2016 to 2,213, up from 1,409 in 2015, the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group said in a report last month.
One cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Islamphobia incidents hasn't had a rise. That is simple not true.
You need top proof more than that to proof that is a hate crime.
To say this was a hate crime, you will need to provide, without reasonable doubt, the sole purpose of Torres attack was racially or religiously motivated. Which mean either he have to be actively seeking Muslim to attack, which amongst the first thing, the crime have to be premeditated. There cannot be a "Chance" or "Accidental" Hate Crime. Because if you cannot prove the crime is premeditated, that mean the whole encounter is by chance, which mean the target opportunities is random (ie, he attack a person who turn out to be Muslim because it is what he could find, instead of he attack the person
BECAUSE she is a Muslim, because that is what he was looking for)
To sum up: In order to charge Torres on Hate Crime you will need to proof, beyond reasonable doubt that.
1.)He was near the mosque by intention, not by chance or transit
2.)He attack the girl because she is a Muslim, not by chance
3.)His sole motivation is that he is going out to attack a muslim that night, not by chance.
4.)His crime is premeditated
Problem is, the police cannot prove the attack was premeditated (He would have charged with second degree murder instead of capital offence had he not raped the victim) because the police cannot show enough prove that he has a motive and plan to attack a Muslim, in this case, had it be a 17 years old white Christian teenager walking past the street, the result would have been the same, because his rage does not stem from the victim being a Muslim, rather, his rage or motive is squarely put on the traffic incident itself. In fact, in the police chatter, the Detective who investigate this case put on his report stating Torres may not even aware she was a Muslim even tho Nabra was wearing traditional Islamic dress because the education level of Torres and the his background.
To explain your point.
Point 1 is a hearsay in law because it does not prove anything. because the girl and her group in itself is a traffic
Point 2 is irreverent because a crime can be committed whether or not the person is intoxicated.
The important issue here is the premeditation and motive, and both were lacking, as the fact of the case fit more to he was driving down the road, go pissed off and attack a random girl who turn out to be Muslim, rather than he was sparked by something anti-islam and decided to attack some random Muslim that day.
You can accuse the police did not do their job to their fullest extend to find out the circumstance on this case, but as the case present, they cannot charge him with hate crime, just there are lack of evidence to do so, statistic alone cannot be use as a tool.
