You are again changing what he said to suit. I think you should remember that he is also half-white - he did not say that all white people are jerks; he pointed out that it wasn't uncommon for people perceived to be black to be treated as suspicious. Do you think he is wrong?

If you feel offended by his comments, can you tell me why? Is it because you cannot claim you don't "innocently racially profile?" Do you think it's fair to ignore that this does happen and may still color this sort of case? (I don't accuse you of anything that I don't do myself. I know and am ashamed that I cannot always control my instinctive reactions - sometimes based on color.)

If we let them. If we, instead, choose to realize that he is coming from a different angle than we are used to, and that, perhaps, he may be right and has a right to comment, maybe we can learn something from him. He did not attack you - he pointed out that, in the past, unfortunate treatment has been directed at him because of color, and because of that he understands why some people may instinctively feel that the current situation arose from racism. He makes an attempt to explain his cultural baggage, so to speak, and I don't think that's wrong. Uncomfortable for me, yes, but not wrong.

I also found it uncomfortable when I first realized I was being a complete idiot about homosexuality. The first time I heard strong opposition from the other side, I was pissed. I mean, who were these people to tell me I was being small-minded and bigoted? Now I have a different opinion, but I imagine that if I still felt differently, I'd be pissed all over again each time someone powerful supported gay marriage. The point being that some things should be said even if they will make people uncomfortable.

He didn't attack the justice system, try to direct the outcome of the case, or even comment on the results, that I have seen. Recognizing that some people are furious over that outcome, and giving them a nod of recognition isn't the same as upsetting the balance. It's also not neutrality; people are typically elected because we prefer the sides they have picked during the elections.

Many powerful people have supported the system and refused to shake the boat, but I prefer the group of founding fathers who decided enough was enough. Or a president who agreed that slavery was bad. Or a third, who thought schools should not be segregated. I shudder to think where we would be if all presidents stayed "neutral."