No, certainly not. I'm saying they've evolved to the point that talking about slave patrols when discussing the problems of modern day policing is unhelpful at best and ignorant of what slave patrols were like at worst.

"Gish gallop" is a new one for me. But I'm pretty sure a series of three simple, yes/no questions followed by two follow-ups, especially in a written conversation, doesn't qualify. I'm not trying to "paralyse conversation. Don't be so melodramatic.

I don't think the past is off-limits at all. Far from it. "Those who don't learn from history..." and all that. I just think the past should be referenced appropriately and intelligently, in ways that are likely to enable greater clarity in the present.

And again, I don't know if you really are this unable to detect tone, but I wasn't asking you these questions because I was unaware of the answers. I was asking them to highlight that there are obvious differences between slave patrols and modern day police.

Tyre Nichols was a free black man, with the same rights as all other American citizens, who was nonetheless unlawfully killed by five black officers. In response, the officers' superiors fired them, charged them, and they will very likely be imprisoned for their actions.

Pretty much none of these things were true in the era of slave patrols. So what is the utility of comparing his situation to it? How does your "diagnosis" of the origins of the police force lead you to the conclusion that slave patrols are the source of the problem?

Just two questions this time. Hope that's okay.