Notice that while average white parents might worry about criminals before letting their kids out on the street, the black parents worry (with good reason) about the police.
(Just to spell it out: this is why so many BLM activists feel comfortable saying "abolish the police" or "defund the police", because from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals)
> “Young teens or pre-teens of color were handcuffed, arrested, or held at gunpoint while participating in age-appropriate activities such as running, playing with friends, high-fiving, sitting on a stoop, or carrying a backpack.”
This is child abuse.
This is a delusion - they are at least 2 orders of magnitude more likely to be assaulted or killed by another (non-police) black person.
This is yet another scenario where a relatively minor source of risk gets vastly disproportionate coverage and almost everyone falls for it.
ETA: it’s funny that this straightforward statement of objective fact is being so poorly received.
There are (at least) two different conditional probabilities we might be interested in here:
1. If a black child is assaulted or killed, who was responsible?
In this case you are partially correct: it is (by about one order of magnitude, not at least two) more likely that it was another non-police black person.
2. If a black child interacts with a particular person (e.g. police, or a non-police black person), how likely are they to be assaulted or killed?
If we are willing to assume (as is certainly the case) that black children have more interactions with non-police black people than they do with police, by more than one order of magnitude, then we can conclude that police are more likely to assault or kill than a non-police black person, conditional on an interaction. It is thus extremely reasonable for black parents to teach their children to avoid police and to try to keep them away from police.