Cherri Tart, Silverfyre, the problem I see with people calling it racist right off the bat because of the race of the police officer and perpetrator is that all too often people who do that use the racist card first just because of the race of the police and perpetrator. Maybe I do live in an area with not as much violence (the nearest large city is Spokane (population 209,000)), and certainly not as many deaths, but from what I have seen on the news here, if a perpetrator is white or any race, male or female, they will use force to take you to the ground indiscriminately sometimes. They would do that to a white, a black, an Asian or Hispanic, male or female if they resisted arrest. Race and/or gender wouldn't make any difference. As someone said here, I would call that more of a case of police abuse of power if too much force is used than being race motivated if the perpetrator was a minority, much like I consider the Garner case. to be The man's own daughter she says doesn't consider the incident racist.
Which brings me back to the point I am trying to make: Yes there are groups like the KKK and there was a major need for the Civil Rights movement, and there still is in some cases, but not all violence against minorities is because of racism. Those who consider the case racist might be looking at it that way because they have a tendency to look at -any- case against minorities as racist just because of the color of the skin. It is real easy to find racist things when you're predisposed to think of everything as racist. All I am asking is that people think before using the race card on an incident. Despite what you* or others might think, it doesn't automatically mean minority violence is racist.
* the you is a general you, not meaning anyone here on E. I'm not accusing anyone here of racism, I just want people to think hard on it before calling any attack racially motivated just because the people involved were of different ethnic backgrounds.