I'm a little leary of the article. It seems like it's written deliberately to blow things out of proportion. "Some of the girls were literally running into traffic to save their lives."

WTF? It was 30 on 4 and the "attack" had been going on for 20 minutes. I have no doubt that this was a bunch of kids picking on some other kids. And there probably were racial undertones or even overtones, but I don't think it was a hate crime per se. I think a hate crime would be more like if the girls were just walking down the street and been attacked. These kids had already had a verbal altercation about who got to use the basketball courts and were pissed off about that.
Don't get me wrong...the kids should be punished, but I don't think this rises to the level of hate-crime.
And personally, I think it's good to distinguish between hate-crime and non-hate-crime. The cirminal justice system is concerned with cimes against society. If you want victim compensation take it to the civil system. Hate-crime is a more serious crime against society, I think, because there is no motive. The victim has done nothing to provoke the attacker and the attacker doesn't stand to gain anything by killing the victim. If somebody holds up a liquor store and the clerk pulls a gun and gets shot, that's awful and the robber should be put away, but one can at least see a reasonable motive for holding up the liquor store.
Plus, hate crimes feed on eachother. Every time a black person is killed by a white person purley out of racism it widens the rift between the races and increases the likelihood of even more hate crimes, from either side. This is especially bad for society so society should be especially concerned with preventing it.
That's my $2.00
