Oh, I couldn't agree more. And yes, I understand the distinction between the actions of a representative of the state and a random citizen. I'm not in any way suggesting that we shouldn't be talking about police brutality, I'm saying that describing the deaths of almost three times as many black children is a "distraction" shows how wacky our priorities have gotten.

Bear in mind, the majority of police shootings, even unarmed ones, are precipitated by a citizen (black, white or otherwise) breaking the law. There are very serious discussions to be had about how an officer should behave in those situations and whether force is justified. Far too often it isn't, and in those cases they need to be held accountable (as you know, I wrote about this).

But to make the same argument I make in the piece, if you were a student 150 years from now and a professor asked you about the "racial reckoning" of 2020:

"Would you have spoken up in defence of the disproportionate number of black children being shot even though some considered it a distraction?"

I hope you'd answer "yes".

Most people have a horribly warped perception of police brutality because of the agenda of the media. The chances of an unarmed black person being killed by a police officer is around the same as their chance of being struck by lightning in any given year. Is that still too many people? Absolutely. The target is zero. But to be perfectly honest, if I had to choose *one* issue (again, thankfully there's nothing stopping us from speaking about both), I'd choose the kids.