Okay, this still isn't clear to me at all. Because it doesn't really mean anything.

I can say the relationship between bicycle and a car is like the relationship between grandparent and child. Its not a wholly unreasonable statement. But what am I actually saying? How close is that relationship? What parallels am I drawing? When I talk about the workings of a car, how relevant am I trying to say the workings of a bicycle are?

Before you accuse me of "gish galloping," I'm not asking you to answer these questions. I'm pointing out the ways in which a flawed or weak analogy doesn't actually serve to clarify anything. It's a statement I can throw out, pretty much at random, to claim a connection when no meaningful connection exists. If I'm trying to talk about a problem specific to cars, raising the topic of bicycles is not only stupid, it makes the central issue harder to talk about.

So, I'll ask again; do you think that the history of slave patrols is relevant to this modern day conversation we're having about black police officers killing a black man? Yes or no? If so, how exactly???

Stop accusing me of strawmanning when I'm literally asking you to clarify your argument. Asking for clarification is pretty much the exact opposite of strawmanning. It makes you sound like you're spamming a word you don't understand.