I agree with you on all points, however they're irrelevant to my reasoning. What I was trying to do was highlight the main difference, his intention of hurting the statue's owner for his perceived religion, through destruction of his property. Now, it's only hearsay until the evidence is presented, for we all know cops will often interpret an individuals words completely incorrectly. Regarding your and the previous commenter's point about the leftist mob's crimes, they destroyed statues of presidents and war heroes, etc. One can argue George Washington and Robert E. Lee were godlike figures, but the criminal intent was never related to religion. Also, I am pretty sure no individual ever confessed to damaging a statue for religious reasons, as was done in this case.