>"Question 3: Why are supporters of "hate crime" legislation so obsessed with the criminal's motive? Tillery is just as dead as Byrd was."

Motive is a basic element of any crime and the courts are most interested in motive as one of the determinates of meting out justice.

>"Question 4: Why do most media consider this case not newsworthy?"

Very interesting. It certainly seems a brutal killing. The only thing that comes to mind is that in Texas brutality is so commonplace that it warrants less coverage than it would receive elsewhere? I just don't know any more than you do about the crime in question, or how and why the media make decisions on what is and is not newsworthy. case today.

>"...during the 2000 presidential campaign the pro-Democrat pressure group National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ran a vile ad trying somehow to blame Byrd's killing on George W. Bush, who as Texas governor had opposed bogus "hate crime" legislation.

NAACP is probably better recognized as a "special interest" group. I can't figure how Dubya got connected to this horrible crime. I need some explanation of this.

I agree with you that a crime is a crime, and that society cries out for the perps to be fairly tried and if convicted, then sentenced to the appropriate penalty under the law. Race, religion, wealth, power---nothing--changes this or excuses those guilty from being subject to the penalties of the law.

The penalties that I might like to extract on those that committ a crime such as you outline have no bearing upon what the law would allow. I yield my Draconian views to our codified system of law.