Black lives matter is promoting racism and black privilage

No argument was needed that criminality does not justify denial of justice. The problem with that line of thought if that there was not sufficient evidence to even bring these cases to court. The majority of officers are not even indicted. Take the Michael Brown case for example. Darren Wilson was not indicted because no proof of the BLM claims was found. In fact the opposite was true. They found reason to believe that the account of Wilson was true. The "plethora of supports" my opponent listed fell quite short of proving a deductive fallacy, instead trying to deflect from the issue at hand. When someone deflects or attempts to diminish the opponents argument without proving proof of ones own position it shows the lack of any foundation. The statistics I provided are completely relevant to the topic because it proves the BLM claims to be completely false. BLM is promoting racism in America as an excuse for those statistics. They claim that those stats are falsely presented. They also claim that because black people are a minority and still account for so much of the incarceration rate proves racism. Instead of trying to figure out how to change the criminal culture so prevalent in the black community they accuse the system. That's making false accusations to deflect from the real issues. BLM promotes racism as the culprit despite the myth being repeatedly debunked. My opponent goes on to argue that BLM is simply protesting the "dehumanization" of colored people. Again I ask, where is the proof? If there was truly so much racism there would be substantial proof to back up such allegations but even black judges have found no reason to convict these officers, the vast majority of times not even being indicted. If the BLM perception is that the taken life of a person of color holds less value within our justice system they should try doing some research because despite the larger numbers of whites being killed, cops are still not being prosecuted because they do not just kill people without good reason. They are trained to respond to the threats presented to them and they have to make these decisions in a split second or they could very well end up killed themselves. Using the "hands up, don't shoot" mantra is indeed promoting racism because despite the fact that it was proven to be a lie and proof that Brown attacked the officer, BLM continued to cry racism. In other words they were making allegations of racism when it wasn't true. Using racism as an excuse for the actions of a criminal that resulted in his own death is promoting racism. Every time they accuse someone of racism without proof, they're promoting racism. I presume nothing but instead make an observation based on all the evidence presented. BLM is citing racism as the reason for these men being killed but witness accounts and video evidence have told a much different story. Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked and he was killed in self defense. (Admittedly Zimmerman was being very idiotic but he was not the one to start an altercation) Charles Kinsey is one particular case I happen to believe the officer was wrong for. It's hard to say what happened when the video cut out but even so I find it incredibly hard to believe the officers account of the incident. This is the only legitimate situation which might qualify as racism. I would like to see an investigation into this incident and see the officer taken to trial. I don't like to make judgments based on an incomplete video but the officer does look guilty. Even though the man was not killed I agree he should not have been shot. Again, there was not evidence for the officers to be indicted. Refer to my 3rd paragraph for the rest of my opponents paragraph. Ill say it again, accusing people of racism when there is no proof is promoting racism. BLM is claiming that these men are killed because of racism, not because of their actions. That is promoting racism. My opponent failed to cite the case what records show someone to have been doing nothing to warrant being shot. I used the term "vast majority" because thats what the evidence has proven. There has yet to be any proof to prove these officers were in the wrong. If racism was truly so rampant as BLM contends there would be an overwhelming amount of proof followed by my officers being convicted. Charles Kinsey was seemingly shot for no justifiable reason but to use the excuse "police sometimes miss" does nothing to prove my opponents position on the topic. Whether he meant to or not im not sure but by that statement hes implying that so far only the criminal blacks have been killed. Apparently the people with clean records are harder to kill. BLM can object all they want but when they start falsely accusing officers of being racist without solid evidence they're promoting racism. My opponent stated "BLM is objecting to unequal dispensation of justice; and they have a case! Since the acquittal of Zimmerman this movement has had a case. This does not constitute racism on the part of BLM. Once again, the Pro would need to show us that calling justice and policing practices into question promotes racism" Theres only one problem, no unequal dispensation of justice has been proven! BLM has failed to prove these officers were unjustified and the courts have found no reasons to indict them. They have no case (except Kinsey), they have ruined their own movement by citing known lies, making unfounded allegations, denying physical evidence, ignoring the findings of the DOJ (which happened to be run by a black man who also suspected racism), failing to condemn criminals, and calling for the death of cops. Some of the sources I listed in previous round showed members of the BLM movement celebrating the death of 5 white cops and calling for more murder of whites. Calling for the death of whites is also racist. My opponent stated the following paragraph in response to my statement that white people are consistently killed in greater numbers and yet there have been virtually no mass riots and no calls for reform. "Consider the tragic story of Otto Zehm in Spokane WA. Otto Zehm was a mentally handicapped white man needlessly beaten and suffocated by police. His death sparked local and national public outrage, the officers involved were indicted and the ranking officer, Karl Thomson was tried and convicted." 1. The victim was mentally handicapped 2. There were no mass riots of destruction 3. There were not calls for reform but there was a very high demand that the officers be prosecuted. 4. Video evidence shows the victim being attacked for no reason, this man had not attacked anyone. Has there been outrage, yes but again there has never been a mass riot resulting in the destruction seen in Ferguson and Baltimore. The case my opponent listed does not compare to the string of recent shootings. My opponent has given absolutely no proof that any of the black men shot since BLM have been attacked the same way Otto was. Ill finish addressing the Otto example in the next round. I've run out of characters