Quote Originally Posted by Taosaur View Post
It's worth considering whether the defendant(s) in an assault, arson or murder trial acted on the belief that the victim's rights or personhood were suspended on account of group belonging, especially when there's a possibility that part of the community and/or the legal system will support them in that belief.
Why?

It is relevant whether a person meant to commit a crime and whether he believed it was necessary for legitimate defense. Acting with intent to commit the violation is what is punished, and appearance of a need for self preservation or the preservation of another makes a perfectly good excuse. Both must be considered. That I get. Why is whether or not the person hated the victim's group relevant?