Seriously, did you REALLY just say

That reads like an Al Sharpton statement—except he defends dead people, not their slayers.It is even more jarring on the heels of THIS:

That does seem to be the competition, yes: Every unarmed person cops shoot is ignored unless the victim is black; each and every one of THOSE shootings immediately becomes a media sensation because the usual suspects (pardon the pun) form into the usual camps, with one side automatically defending cops because the fact some blacks are criminals convinces them all are, and the other automatically defending cops because the fact some cops are criminals convinces them all are. The thing is, when police (or anyone) shoot an unarmed person, the victims RACE is irrelevant—or SHOULD be.

People choose to be cops, are taught how and act accordingly; no one chooses to be black, and it requires no training nor behavior. Many cops and a few entire forces have done and do bad things, for which their chosen profession grants unaccountability no black persons race similarly grants. That does not make ALL cops complicit any more than equally criminal acts by some blacks implicate all blacks, but cops who ARE guilty deserve no more impunity and no less accountability than guilty blacks or any other guilty party. The big differences (other than the obvious one of race being an inborn, uncontrollable and nondeterministic trait occupations are not) are that

1) when blacks are accused of a crime investigating authority is not restricted to OTHER blacks consequently inclined to exonerate their brothers whether or not justified, and
2) Whole chapters of black organizations do not have a POLICY of training all member in criminality and encouraging them to perform it.