This argument is one of the reasons why I think that the discussion of police - black interaction is just the tip of the iceberg. Yes, it’s true that blacks kill each other blacks in astoundingly high numbers, the end result of communities that are economically and socially fractured. But how did it get to be this way? This is the product of centuries of race-based subjugation.
One of the things that people use to discredit black victims of police abuse is to point to their prior criminal history or the fact that they were breaking the law at the time of their encounters with police. In the case of Philando Castle, for example, people say, “Well come on, the guy had 80 citations.” And that might be true. But more than half were thrown out. Moreover, when someone gets ensnared in the legal system with minimal resources to dig themselves to navigate its treacherous waters, they get more citations, fines, court rulings against them. Before long, they are no longer being punished for their own misdeed, they are being punished for their lack of awareness of the legal system’s complexity and potentially onerous ramifications.
In the case of Alton Sterling, people will say “Well he had a gun on him, and he was a convicted felon.” Maybe so, but he was also hustling to make some cash in a dangerous part of Baton Rouge that is known for violent assaults. As someone who carried cash on him, he knew he was a target. Illegal, yes, but again, why was Alton Sterling reduced to being a hustler? Probably because he grew up in a community that has for centuries been cut off economically, socially, politically from the white mainstream that has all the power.
Blacks end up breaking the white man’s law because they have been put in communities where it is difficult for them to join the mainstream economies. They feel pushed into participating in the underground economies that lure them with quick cash, but then end up getting ground into a pulp by a legal system that over time rules out the possibility of ever having the hope of meaningful employment. So they end up hustling to make cash, which in turn itself leads to more encounters with the police, who became not the protectors against other black criminals but are instead viewed as the most visible and direct representation of black oppression.
Here’s the biggest concern that I have with the line of argument that was referenced in the OP. What do we want the standard for using deadly force to become? Do we want it to be fear of what someone in custody might do, or do we want it to be reasonable fear for one’s safety based on a clear and present danger? I think if we allow police to kill someone simply because they felt afraid, that is setting the bar dangerously low. It’s also incredibly vague. We live in a society where people can carry firearms openly or legally conceal them. In some states, it’s legal to keep a firearm in your glove box, where we might also tend to store our auto registration and proof of insurance. Is one furtive move justification for the use of deadly force?
Which brings me to my final point: Black people see an unequal standard being applied here. The FBI waits out a bunch of armed lunatics who take over federal land in Oregon and brings them into custody alive. They brought Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 165 people in a federal building, into custody alive. They bring the Charleston church shooter into custody alive. But if you’re a black guy simply hustling on the streets like Eric Garner in NY or Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, you get killed for not obeying a policeman’s orders. So we’re dealing with the initial insult of inequality of a system that creates community dysfunction, and then the inequality of a system that treats suspects in two different communities differently as well. Until white America understands this, don’t expect a black person to take seriously the lectures about how blacks kill other blacks. Even if the message is valid, the messenger lacks credibility. And I say this as a white man.