Yeah, assuming those charts represent the general population as a whole, rather than just those that have direct dealings with police, then there are certainly a whole bunch of possible reasons other than sexism.

Although to be honest "risk/chance" charts like that generally don't mean much anyway.They don't actually show the risk/chance of something happening. They would if that was the sole deciding factor, but it isn't. There are a whole bunch of factors, such as the ones Kiigel listed above, that affect it too. They only prove that more black men die due to the police than anybody else, not that there's a higher chance of black men dying than anybody else. I expect the latter is true as well, but those charts don't actually prove it.

Well you mentioned part of it in your post above in regards to women.

The issue is that the people being compared aren't equal. For an accurate estimate of chance you'd need to compare people who are equal in everything except the variable you're trying to determine the impact of. ie. if skin colour was the only difference between the groups of people then it would give you a near 100% accurate measurement of the chance of a member of that particular group being killed by police. But that's not really possible. The two groups have a huge amount of diversity in terms of location, socio-economic background, physical appearance (other than skin colour) and countless other factors. Even with people in the same group, is somebody in say Chicago more likely to be killed by police than somebody in a small town? Possibly. Is somebody that's clearly poor more likely to be killed than somebody that clearly has money? Possibly. Is somebody that's 6'4 and muscular more likely to be killed by police than somebody who's 5'4 and clearly not a physical threat? Possibly.

There are numerous other factors that could result in more black people being killed by cops than just skin colour. Those charts suggest there is a bias against black people, but they alone don't prove it. Even in a society with absolutely no racism at all there would likely still be a difference (albeit a smaller one) between the number of people of each ethnicity killed by police, even though the chances would be exactly equal (since with no racism, race would be a complete non-factor)

You're explaining a tactic. I'm fully aware of the tactic, its to prevent protests from being successful and productive. The original post was explaining that they don't distinguish between peaceful and non peaceful protest. What happened that they suddenly had to leave the park? Were they not peaceful?

Please again revisit the original talking points.

I'm personally done with this thread because I feel there are more important places for my energy to spent. its also why I'm not responding to you @KLAMarine. Please actively research whats going on (i.e confirmed deaths) if you're going to constantly engage in conversation.

My last point, for anyone who is hell bent on trying to discredit the idea that police brutality has racial bias, please reconfigure your priorities. Either you think deaths like George Floyds are justified or not. Either you think police need to be held more accountable or not. 

Within my first response to you I brought up acounter-example from the Minneapolis PD (as direct a comparison as one can make): Officer Noor unjustifiably shooting & killing Justine Damond.  The time between said shooting and him being charged was ~8 months.  There wasn't some huge mob 7 months after Damond's death demanding he be charged with manslaughter and MPD just acquiesced.  No, it's clear all available evidence had to be gathered from as many sources as possible, assess how Noor failed in his duties leading UP to said death, and on and on.  I would've hated to have to wait that long for justice to proceed; however, given recent history of acquittals based on hasty decisions and technicalities (<-I believe AZ motel shooting as example) it seems like slow-n-steady increases the likelihood of winning the race.  

Giving the protests (that occasionally devolved into riots) all credit for that MPD officer being formally charged is based on ignorance.  That's the claim I shot down at the beginning and that was my focus.

I mean you say this but...some of your past points made regarding the Castile case suggest otherwise.  In regards to formal education, you're talking to someone who has an Associate's in Criminal Justice.  This doesn't defeat any old/new points you make by itself.  I'm just hesitant to believe you can confidently make that claim.  The problem with your example is that I have to deal with a stacked deck:

-find examples of 4 police officers being fired simultaneously then charged

The first problem is that's not the story with the Floyd case either.  Only 1 of the officers has currently been charged: Officer Chauvin.  To no surprise, he's the one shown kneeing Floyd's neck.  What about the other 3?  Since their responsibility is more indirect in comparison, it's easy to see why their charges may be staggered.  

"Rioting & looting sends a message, it works, our goals will be achieved if we keep doing this!"

Assuming this is actually true and it does work to riot, but work to achieve what? what are you goals anyway? what do you want?

Every subset of the society in the US has lost some of its members due to police brutality, you're not more likely or less likely to be a victim because of your skin color. You have no cause, and this is not gonna fix anything because you're rioting against the problem that doesn't exist EVEN IF we all hypothetically agreed that rioting and looting solve those problems.

8). Police training. Many states require as little as 360 hours of training to become an officer with a badge and a gun. This stands in contrast for ALL states requiring a 4 year Bachelor's degree to be a teacher. Or over 1,500 hours of training to be a barber for some states, like Connecticut, plus pass a licensing and certification exam.