Sure. I'll be more precise in identifying where you are misrepresenting and distorting information. Though, I'm likely going to be met with your self centered, pretentious attitude. It's common amongst those who share your ideology. Apparently, there is only one way of viewing the world, and that is your way.
Someone should not be waving a gun round in a public park (although that's not what Rice was doing when the police arrived), but we shouldn't blame them for being killed by the police for it. Someone should not go on holiday without locking their doors, but we shouldn't blame them for their house being robbed.
Do you not see what you're doing there? In one instance, someone is BREAKING the law. Someone is not acting in accordance with civilized society. In the other instance, someone IS acting in accordance with civilized society and IS NOT breaking the law. That comparison is god awful. It isn't even the same. It's a way for you to make a point that doesn't exist. Every example you gave was one where someone WAS NOT breaking the law. Although it may be legal to carry a firearm in Ohio, it is not legal to brandish a firearm unless being used in self defense.
Your point is that you should not blame the victim. Well, I am not blaming only Tamir for what happened in that case. But, I am saying that what he was doing was unsafe. It lead to his death. He was breaking the law. He was (from what could be seen) endangering all those around him. He was careless pointing a gun in any which direction he felt. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhVewrqGFRw, watch from the 1:15 mark to the 1:25 mark, that way you can't say I made this up). The actions seen on those ten seconds would be justifiable reasoning for someone in the vicinity to use lethal force had they been carrying a concealed weapon legally. You CAN NOT go around a park brandishing a gun at will. I don't know why that is so tough for you to understand. I know you want to victimize minorities to support your agenda, but it's disregarding the truth and facts of the matter. It is not legal. It is endangering the public and he is the one choosing to subject others to his careless actions. He is making that choice. NO ONE ELSE. It's called self responsibility. And, if he is too young to be held responsible for his actions, it is his parents duty to ensure that their child is not endangering those around him. Hence, my stress on their lack of involvement in his life.
I may not personally know any inner city cops, but it's blatant that I know a lot more about what makes good police than you. I gave you a number of logical reasons why prejudiced cops are bad cops, you have not been able to refute any of them.
I NEVER said being prejudice is a good thing. I said that it is very difficult (I used the word impossible, but I'm not going to play a game of semantics. I used impossible to hammer home the point) for inner city cops to not hold prejudices. I know this from not only having discussed their interactions with minorities, but from the sheer data the FBI reports on violent crime. They are 100% aware that black men are MORE LIKELY (much more likely) to commit a violent crime. In your mind, this is prejudice. Being aware that a certain demographic commits more crime, irregardless of the reason, is not prejudice. It is a fact. By definition, prejudice is "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience". This notion that black men commit violent crime at a much higher rate than any of their other racial counterparts is not prejudice. It is a FACT! We could go on for days discussing whether this mentality should or should not exist. There are examples where racial targeting and stop and frisk programs have lowered crime rates (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/17/does-stop-and-frisk-reduce-crime/stop-and-frisk-has-lowered-crime-in-other-cities). Again, I am not forming an opinion on this, just stating a fact.
< Your taxes are going to the government anyway. Why not build just one less aircraft carrier this year? Just one, and use that money to do some demonstrable good to impoverished and disadvantaged communities.
The US already spends hundreds of billions of dollars on welfare programs every year. When is it enough? I do have compassion for others. There is a necessity for helping those less fortunate and in dire times, but there comes a point where these programs breed reliance. The system is not flawless and in my opinion doesn't need more money thrown at it. It needs an overhaul.
< It's an absolute fact that there are enough resources in the world to go around everybody, that if we split our wealth equally, if we spent our money in the right places, nobody would have to go hungry, no community would have to be mired in criminality, no child would have to grow up without suitable guardians.
Distorted fact. It may be a fact that there are enough resources for no one to go hungry, for all those to get by, BUT is there an example in history where there wasn't poverty? Has humanity ever existed without poverty? And, what is the reasoning? Freedom and greed. You can't take away greed as it will always be a part of human nature. A vice that is shared amongst us all to varying degrees. When you take away freedom, you need to give that freedom and power to someone else. The government. You are then only hoping that the government consists of the perfect most moralistic individuals, which it does not. They are also greedy, corrupt, and immoral.