Been a while since I spent my weekend answering reader nastygrams, but that's what I get for wading into the racial muck underneath the Philadelphia flash mobs.
Sunday's column explored the uncomfortable truth that the crimes have been committed entirely by blacks against (mostly) whites. (To date, we know of one black victim, a homeless man, and one mob that targeted a Cambodian shopkeeper.)
Thus, I asked the question: If a crime certainly appears to be racially motivated, is it automatically a hate crime? Can a random assault be the former without being the latter? Can predators chose their prey based on perceived weakness and not be guilty of ethnic intimidation if every person they wallop is white?
Pennsylvania law says "Yes" to the above. But most readers said "No" and accused me, lawmakers and police of hiding from the obvious: If it looks, waddles and quacks like a duck, it's fowl.