who is the victim?

I'd been thinking that the church was the victim. It's a fair point as to whether there was a theft and, therefore, a crime. And since it's been 20 years since I studied any criminal law that wasn't white collar, I'll let others argue the point.

As to cheapening the idea of a hate crime, I think of a "hate crime" as (1) a crime where (2) the motive is hatred of a group. Which means, if something is stolen from a Catholic church because it belongs to a Catholic church, the motive could be seen as religious bias.

So, any theft here would be at least arguably a hate crime. Which doesn't mean that a sensible D.A. would necessarily choose to prosecute anything that way.

What type of job is it?

A Troll-be-gone Google api, I bet. You use Google Earth to locate them, and then you use Google Magic Wand to take away their web access.

And trying to figure out what the hell I'm going to wear.

Something smart, yet interesting, and long-lasting. Aren't their processes supposed to be hellish? (Not Hellish.)

I thought I had picked up a second wind from doing a little stupid computer training for my team (it was An Accomplishment! And easy!), but sadly, it only lasted about 15 minutes. I am so done.

As to cheapening the idea of a hate crime, I think of a "hate crime" as (1) a crime where (2) the motive is hatred of a group. Which means, if something is stolen from a Catholic church because it belongs to a Catholic church, the motive could be seen as religious bias. So, any theft here would be at least arguably a hate crime.

Which is exactly my problem with the concept of "hate crime." Theft is theft.

What type of job is it?

Sort of a technical auditing position.

Something smart, yet interesting, and long-lasting. Aren't their processes supposed to be hellish?

Yeah, I was thinking something on the nicer side of business casual, but colorful and with interesting accessories. I think their processes may be hellish, but much more hellish for engineers than support people.

Hmmm... if I go to an all-you-can-eat restaurant that has a policy about no doggie bags, yet I try to pocket some food, I wouldn't be too surprised if they called the cops. So I extend the principle to the distribution of Communion wafers.

I actually was going to use that analogy earlier, but it doesn't work. The restaurant sold you the food, not gave it to you. They also clearly established the rule that the food was to be eaten on the premises. While you are clearly expected to ingest the wafer in the church, there is no stated rule that you must.

I'd been thinking that the church was the victim. It's a fair point as to whether there was a theft and, therefore, a crime. And since it's been 20 years since I studied any criminal law that wasn't white collar, I'll let others argue the point.

Although you can charge someone with a crime against an entity (say, bank robbery), that law is clearly codified. Further, how was the church harmed by this? The only harm that has been done here is by the church encouraging this witch hunt against this stupid kid.

As to cheapening the idea of a hate crime, I think of a "hate crime" as (1) a crime where (2) the motive is hatred of a group. Which means, if something is stolen from a Catholic church because it belongs to a Catholic church, the motive could be seen as religious bias.

I think that the crime must be a violent crime to be classified as a hate crime. Even in the case of hate graffiti, it is the implied threat that makes it a hate crime, not the graffiti itself.

Which is exactly my problem with the concept of "hate crime." Theft is theft.

Do you have a problem with pre-meditation? Murder is murder.

(Personally I go back and forth on the issue.)

Do you have a problem with pre-meditation? Murder is murder.

If in each case, you deliberately murdered someone? No, I don't care if you planned it out or not.

it does seem like they're trying to scoop me up before another department gets to me.

This is how it should be. I am so excited for you!!

Also, theft is (IIRC from law school) the taking of the property of another without their consent. The church gave the wafer to the kid, he didn't sneak into the vestry and take it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the church shouldn't have a problem with it (well, maybe I am, but I can see how they would), but calling this a hate crime is hyperbole. Plus, the removal of the wafer from the church as NOT motivated by bias, so IMNSHO, neither "hate" nor "crime" is applicable here.