Anonymizing photos of the violent ones is therefore likely to support their actions by making accountability less likely. To scrub ethically, limit it to the non-violent protestors. To support non-violence, better to help identify the violent people -- police or civilian -- the opposite of anonymizing them.
The thing is people are already being held accountable for their skin tone, and the likelihood of changing your behavior when you have lived your entire life in an environment of constant oppression for fear of being identified in a protest is marginal, specially during catharsis, otherwise you wouldn't see for instance people burning police cars in front of a camera.
Keep in mind also that many (most?) of these "violent protestors" are simply reacting against violent cops in a power trip. I can't say I wouldn't react violently against a cop intentionally running over me and others with its SUV, but I can say that I would be thankful if my face was anonymized no matter how I reacted.
Actually, a lot more whites are killed by cops than blacks. And before you say that's because there are more white people than black people, blacks represent only 13% of the population but commit 52% of the crime. So, you are less likely to get killed committing a crime as a black person than as a white person.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de... https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-amer...
You've made a number of unfounded leaps on top of that: That "Black people commit 52% of crime." This is wrong in several ways. You're assuming that conviction rates accurately represent rates of crimes, and also that "all crime" has the same statistics as homicide. But instead, we see that black people are convicted of only 27% of overall crime. That's including the fact that certain categories are known to be racially disparate in conviction and sentencing - e.g. white & black people use marijuana at approximately equal rates, yet black people are nearly 4 times as likely to be arrested for it. That the people killed by cops were all committing a crime at the time. I don't have statistics on hand for this, but a well-known counterexample is Tamir Rice.
Yes, that's right. See the connection between crime and cops killing civilians?
> But instead, we see that black people are convicted of only 27% of overall crime.
Where do you see this? I can't find this anywhere.
> That's including the fact that certain categories are known to be racially disparate in conviction and sentencing - e.g. white & black people use marijuana at approximately equal rates, yet black people are nearly 4 times as likely to be arrested for it.
That by itself doesn't show anything. It depends on how and where marijuana was used. Smoking a blunt and driving around the neighborhood with the top down is going to picked up a lot more than someone sitting in their home smoking. You need to show situations that are the same which have more blacks being arrested than whites.
> That the people killed by cops were all committing a crime at the time. I don't have statistics on hand for this, but a well-known counterexample is Tamir Rice.
Yea, I'm sure you don't... that subset has to be so minor it has to be insignificant. Oh, an anecdotal incident where a 12 year old boy carried a replica of a pistol and aimed it at an cop, who didn't know it wasn't real. I don't see how your example justifies this as a big problem.