I deal all the time with the inappropriate collectivization of all interactions between black persons and white police officers. Both have points to be made, in certain circumstances. But a problem arises when people imprint onto those circumstances their own experience or political narrative.
Advocates for reform have a point that we can revisit the tendency of officers to treat people differently based on economic class or skin color. I don't see why anyone would argue against that. It can't hurt to talk about it. BUT, it is a mistake to conclude that every interaction between white officers and black person that goes south is because of race. When advocates for reform do that, they destroy their credibility on the larger issue.
Those who deny there is a problem at all destroy their own credibility when they ignore the larger issue, or when they write off terrible circumstances as an oddity. I think we can rationally have a discussion about the bigger issue without having to resort to name calling or comparing incomparable situations to one another.
Take the incident with the young man shot by the gun rather than a taser, apparently by accident. One can argue until the cows come home whether the initial stop of the car was motivated by his race. I've seen no evidence of that but people claim it. Ok.
But when he bolts after being placed under arrest and the situation goes south in about 2 seconds, you cannot say race had anything to do with it. The officers reacted to what he was doing, not who he was. It may have been "wrong" in the sense that the officer confused her weapons, but it was not "wrong" because he was black since the officers had to react in a split second to what he did, black, white, purple, or green.