I don't view hate crime laws as a way to criminalize thought, or even address all types of hate inspired crime, but rather to address long standing history and prevalence of targeting of people within groups, eg blacks, LGBT, women, etc. solely because they were members of that group.

I think they allow prosecutors to up the ante for crimes where hate based on membership of that group is a major, if not only, motivator. Without them, burning a cross on someone's lawn may be a simple trespassing or destruction of property charge. Nobody doubts racism and hate are motivators here, but there is no such history and prevalence of targeting people solely because they are Hispanic vets. There was that type of history and prevalence in the case of Mathew Sheppard, and decades of lynchings and beatings of people solely for being black.

Have hate crime laws outlived their usefulness? That would be nice, but I doubt it. I sure hope we get to that point, and as soon as possible, but we're not there yet by any stretch IMO. Should hate and racism as a motivator be considered in sentencing in a case like this? Absolutely. Should the hate crime aspect make a difference or up the ante in a serious violent felony like this? No, all such crimes should be treated seriously and punished severely regardless of whether the victim is or is not a member of a hate crime protected group. And I'm not sure it makes a difference now. I don't think this type of case or a murder is penalized any more severely just because it was also a hate crime. Smaller hate motivated crimes, yes, and it should. Hopefully the many lawyers we seem to have here can correct me if I'm wrong.