The guy-on-a-barstool take on media reporting of murders is right:
"If a white guy kills a black guy, it's a hate crime, every time. If a black guy kills a white guy, it's nothing."
Indeed, it's difficult to figure what else might have motivated an 18-year-old black male to snatch a sleeping white four-year-old and stab him to death [Teen, 18, in an ankle monitor 'snatches four-year-old boy from his bed, stabs him to death and dumps his body on Dallas street in random attack,' by Megan Sheets, Dailymail.com, May 16, 202].
Gang dispute? Drug debt? The four-year-old moved on his girl?
As with Cannon Hinnant, blind racial rage is a plausible explanation.
That's certainly the place everyone would go if the races were reversed.
White opposition to "hate crimes" stems from the fact that they're seen as charged exclusively against whites.
But if you're going to take "hate crimes" seriously as a category, you'd have to take a much closer look at cross-racial murders in which there is simply no other motive. That's because less articulate sorts aren't going to enunciate their racial animus—they're just going to kill.
It also wouldn't be too difficult for a journalist to look into how many "motiveless" cross-racial murders happen, and what the breakdown on races is.
And, if it was mental derangement that caused Darriyn Brown to commit this act, I'm interested in knowing how often those killings are cross-racial.
Having any of this information would help us know the cost of life with blacks.
