Bringing examples of unjustified police shootings into this discussion is a straw man argument. No one ever said that the police are perfect, or that they don't make mistakes, or even that there aren't some bad apples out there. BUT...
That doesn't justify what this "firearms instructor" is saying. If you can't see through his political agenda, then I highly suggest you turn off MSNBC because it's rotting your brain. I imagine the number of unjustified police shootings per year is somewhere along the lines of shark attacks and lightning strikes. And most of those are probably accidents and misunderstandings. And out of those accidental shootings, where the officer made a mistake, the victim was probably doing something to intentionally aggravate the situation. Like the 12 year old black kid with a BB gun that looked every bit like a real handgun.
And in general, white people are far more likely to be involved in an unjustified police shooting than blacks. More white people are shot by police each year, despite the fact that most violent encounters with police are committed by black men. It's obvious that black communities are being handled with kid gloves, a practice going back to the aftermath of the Rodney King riots. And this soft treatment of thugs is the major reason why black communities have become so dangerous lately. They scream bloody murder when a thug gets shot by police, then they accuse the police of not doing their jobs when that same thug breaks into their house. This guy is using the same line of BLM doublethink. First he says that blacks need firearms training to protect themselves because police aren't doing their jobs, then he says that they need it in order to protect themselves from police doing their jobs. It's absurd.
When you look at this guy's warped politics, it's easy to see he's just another racist extremist BLM type who thinks whitey is out to get him. And he's advocating violence against police who have done nothing wrong. When he speaks of police shootings, we must surmise that he's speaking of the ones most widely publicised, the ones which resulted in entire neighbourhoods being destroyed, namely Michael Brown. If he meant to refer to lesser known, potentially legitimate wrongdoings, then he would have named them specifically and intentionally excluded cases like that of Michael Brown.
So essentially what this guy is saying is that Michael Brown should have been carrying a gun so he could shoot Darren Wilson in "self defense." Or that Trayvonne Martin would have been justified in killing Zimmerman. That is not the position of someone who is a constitutionalist. It's the position of a radical racial extremist, and a militant one at that.
And again, if you're getting your news from Vice, then that's your problem. There's nothing those people are saying that's worth anyone's time.
