I bet you thought it couldn't get any more frustrating. I mean, our sworn protectors have, with disturbing regularity, engaged in fatal shootings under the most questionable circumstances and evaded even the most initial proceedings geared toward *asking those questions*. When the proceedings are initiated, those too take place under the most questionable of circumstances - with sadly predictable outcomes. Every time.

We are now at a place where an *indictment* of our sworn protectors who appear to fail in their duty is a victory. As though the act of *charging* someone who may have committed a crime with that crime is some sort of concession for which we should all be grateful.

Our. Sworn. Protectors. A majority of whom hold that duty sacred. A minority of whom hold *power* sacred. A scarcer minority of whom do not see it as their duty to protect certain *kinds* of human life. The minority is the problem. But the blue line - and let's be clear, that includes the prosecutor's office most of the time - protects those it should cast out. Our sworn protectors.

I bet you thought it couldn't get any more ludicrous. Black men and women are murdered under circumstances in which an arrest is warranted, under which a moving violation is warranted, and we are told that if they didn't want to get *dead* they shouldn't have been breaking the law. As though to sell loose cigarettes or *maybe* roll through a stop sign was the same thing as pulling a weapon on our. Sworn. Protectors.

Black men and women die in police custody. Who conducts the investigation? Those police. I bet you thought it couldn't get any more farcical.

Well. Here's the tale of a sick kid who called 911 three times reporting his life was in danger. No officers were dispatched. His father, fearing for his son and seeking emergency psychiatric intervention, called 911.

The officer who was dispatched shot that sick kid six times (four in the back) and that kid died. A stray bullet struck and killed a bystander. And here is what happened next:

1) The medical examiner's office was told this was not a police-involved shooting, and so did not conduct its procedure in such cases.

2) The families of the dead filed wrongful death suits. Because, among other reasons, they have been conditioned not to expect justice in any other form for the lives taken from them.

Okay, now take a deep breath.

3) The cop involved in the shooting. Who took two lives under *whatever* circumstances. Who took up badge and gun and swore an oath and ostensibly prepared for whatever would come thereafter. Filed a *countersuit*. Against the *estate*. Of the *sick* *kid*.

I was telling someone yesterday that I excel at righteous political fury, but don't *do* interpersonal anger. I wasn't expecting to wake up this morning and prove at least half of that self-assessment.

Hey, something has been happening in discussions I've been having lately, and I've been letting it slide without comment. Lemme not for a sec:

The assertion that you possess privilege, and that said privilege affects your perspective and therefore your choices, IS NOT A SLIGHT ON YOUR CHARACTER. It's almost never intended to be, certainly it never should be. The possession of privilege is not a thing with objective moral valence. It is neither a good thing, nor a bad thing. The valence depends on what you do with it, as with the possession of any power or advantage.

So when someone says, "It appears you are privileged on this axis, and that may be affecting your assessment of this situation," I beg you to receive it as feedback rather than criticism (a careful distinction, I am aware). If that someone *is* disrespecting you in their tone, that's not okay, I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying, if that assertion itself strikes you in an uncomfortable place, try to sit with it for a second without projecting your discomfort into a) your consideration of and b) your response to this thought.

(In general, I tend to phrase such things as questions, because I genuinely hope you will ask them of yourself rather than hear accusation coming from me and plead not guilty.)

Because your privilege has no correlation with your character. That's its nature: it is a thing you have by virtue of external factors and/or phenotype in which you played no role growing up and little to no role since.

I am a straight cis-*dude* who grew up in a great deal of economic comfort (if not *always* the social privilege that typically accompanies such). I have the habit of being grateful for my privilege on that last axis because it has literally saved my life a large number of times since my birth. The others, I can understand as neutral facts absent my choice. But if I blunder around in discussions or interactions with people who are not privileged on the same axes and cause offense - or just wield my ignorant world-view in debate against someone who knows better? *Then* my privilege is getting in the way - my way, and the other person's. That's when I need to take the step back and account for its presence as a lens in my perspective.

None of that means I should be defensive about *having* the privilege. None of that means I need to apologize for having it, and I guess I'm fortunate not to know anyone who'd ask me to.

I'll never ask you to. So if you hear otherwise in discussions with me, let me know and I'll back the truck up and restate myself. If you think someone's demanding your apology for being who you are or coming from whence you came? Well, they aren't entitled to it - but don't *not* consider how those things are affecting your perspective and whether or not the perspective of someone without your privilege may be better informed than yours.