Eleven years ago today Matthew Shepard died in a Colorado hospital. He had been robbed and fatally beaten by two men: Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. He was left wounded and tied to a fence post for eighteen hours before he was found and taken to the hospital. Because Shepard was gay, and because his homosexuality played a role in his murder, he was elevated to the status of a martyr. His martyrdom is part of contemporary gay politics, and especially of the case for hate crimes legislation.

Several years ago the ABC News show 20/20 ran a story on the Shepard case that purported to debunk the standard account. I have not seen it, but I gather that the gist was that it was not a hate crime at all but merely a bungled robbery and that drugs may have been involved.

So what was it: a hate crime, or a bungled robbery? The answer is yes. It seemed unlikely from the start that McKinney and Henderson were primarily motivated by prejudice, though their lawyers did, unwisely, employ a "gay panic" defense. The two murderous thugs were motivated by two things that motivate such people: greed, and the desire to beat the daylights out of someone.

But the fact of Shepard's homosexuality is a vital element in the story. As I understand it, they lured Sheppard out of a bar with the promise of sex. That in itself doesn't make this a hate crime. But such predators as these choose their victims carefully, if unreflectively. They are frequently attracted to victims that they believe do not enjoy the protection of society. That is why prostitutes for example, or Blacks or immigrants in some situations, are deemed to be cheap targets. "Is it really illegal," one defendant in a 19^th century murder trial asked, exasperatedly, "to kill a Chinaman?"

Paradoxically, the Shepard case makes a better argument for hate crimes legislation if you assume that McKinney and Henderson were not acting primarily out of prejudice against homosexuals. People who are prepared to assault someone out of a murderous hatred of gays, Blacks, Mexicans, women, or Republicans for that matter, are least likely to be deterred by legal sanctions. But those who consider some category of the population to be easy marks can get the message that that criteria of victim selection will cause the law to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

For that reason, I am in favor of hate crimes laws. Most conservatives are not. They tend to think that such legislation creates special rights for favored groups, as if it were worse to kill a Black lesbian than a White, heterosexual, Baptist preacher. But such legislation can easily be crafted to protect everyone. All of us are minorities according to some criteria. I don't know if there is anyone out there who has it in for short, bearded, conservative, Darwinists, but if there is, I would like them to know that I enjoy the same protection as the Matthew Shepards of the world. The point is not that I need it, I hope I don't. The point is that such a wide definition of hate crimes would appeal to a much larger constituency.

There is nothing wrong with the fact that gay activists are using the late Mr. Shepard as a martyr. That's politics. But interpreting a crime in the way that is most emotionally satisfying is not always the best way to figure out what to do about it. McKinney and Henderson probably weren't textbook homophobes. They were textbook predators. We all have to fear such appalling creatures. If Shepard's memory helps us deal with them, we all will have a reason to remember his passing.