You're misunderstanding, mischaracterizing, and conflating your own arguments. It's a rhetorical appeal to authority, so implicitly, in addition to anyone who

You're misunderstanding, mischaracterizing, and conflating your own arguments. It's a rhetorical appeal to authority, so implicitly, in addition to anyone who shares my respect for and identifies with the values of the American legal heritage, I agree with it. Therefore, even though it has no direct application, as you unnecessarily point out, it is a rhetorical convenience for delineating our very different views of right and wrong. You misunderstand / mischaracterize me in that despite the existence of institutional racism, I think it is morally wrong and intellectually dishonest to presume or even assert that the specific police are racist, without personally specific supporting evidence. And institutional racism against certain categories of brown people is far beyond a mere assumption at this point. Ha, ah yes, the old, "I'm not going to justify my stance, because anyone who disagrees with me is self-evidently delusional." It must be nice to use leverage your inclusion in the ideologically "privileged" majority as an excuse to ignore the merits of my argument. Some would refer to this as a microagression. I'm not interested in engaging the rest of your arguments. It's not related to my original point, there's too much material to cover, and we clearly have wildly divergent views of right, wrong and what constitutes appropriate treatment of the individual police officers in this situation. I will say, to avoid being mischaracterized, that we are in agreement that the student was mistreated. We merely draw different conclusions as to why. Mine upon the specific facts; yours upon generic presumptions, assumptions, assertions and other views that are not specific to this situation. As a personal admission, I don't see any avenue for myself for effective communication with someone that communicates as you have chosen here.