[henry quirk]

"you have very high standards. You insist on "proof" before you'll accept that it exists"

This is as it should be, don't you think?

When life or livelihood is at stake, shouldn't the bar be set high? Shouldn't evidences be offered that are indisputable, that can't be widely (mis)interpreted?

If Joe, a black man, is accused of murder, is it not the obligation of the accuser to 'prove' it?

If Joe, the cop, is accused of bias, accused of abusing his lent power, it s not the obligation of the accuser to 'prove' it?

If institutional bias is claimed, is it not the obligation of the claimant to, in the least, offer sumthin' compelling, unambiguous, and direct as evidence?

There are bad cops, bad whites, bad blacks, bad asians, bad dems, bad repubs, bad christians, bad jews, bad muslims, bad atheists, and on and on...comes down to this: there's seven billion people on the planet and a sizable chunk of them are dumbasses, jackasses, and nutjobs...bad eggs who do bad things...such folks cobble together reasons for doin' what they do (race, religion, politics, money, land, sex, and on and on) but these are just the justifcations...strip those away and the dumbasses, jackasses, and nujobs will still do the bad things.

It's a mistake on the part of well-intentioned folks to give weight to cobbled together reasons (justifications)...doin' that opens the door to givin' dumbasses, jackasses, and nutjobs an out...it's the equivelent of trying to understand or advocate for a rabid dog instead of just identifying it then shooting it.