So let me try and follow this line of thinking - a black person in the same situation as KR would have been found guilty, which would be wrong. Meaning that all facts in this case would point to a black kid’s innocence, but that kid would have been found guilty because of his color. Because of a hypothetical that never happened, a white kid under the same set of facts that exonerate him should have been found guilty. Who can argue with that logic?
Please!
You’re giving me another headache.