So, to summarize your general positions here:
Cops should be given the benefit of the doubt and we should wait for more details before passing judgement when they shoot someone.
BLM supporters are worrisome because they might start rioting, attack a police station, or even start rioting in a neighborhood where “the residents are prepared to defend their property and families”.
So cops should not be judged until we have all of the details, but BLM people can be judged on what might occur.
That’s double standard number one, and a particularly racist standard–cop actually shoots someone, you say to hold back, BLM people haven’t attacked anyone, you say that they might, and that you are “particularly concerned” about one scenario that is literally been one of the primary fear-mongering scenarios on the part of those who buy guns on the fear-and-hope that they’ll get to use them to “defend themselves”.
Next, “voter inflation” is of great concern to you, to the point where you’ll willfully misinterpret the topical discussions of others in order to make a point about it when it effectively doesn’t exist above the level of statistical noise, but actual discussions of “we are disenfranchising voters for explicitly political goals” doesn’t merit any attention or mention from you, which is odd, as robbing people of their enfranchisement is a first step towards dehumanizing them in a legal manner, which you have emphasized as being something that you call out “whenever I see it”.
And, again, the people being disenfranchised are predominately minorities, as are the people being killed by cops at higher-than-population-percentage rates. So that’s painting a disturbing picture of your priorities.
You also have repeatedly attempted to move the goalposts in regards to explaining why black people are shot at statistically over-proportioned rates and to excuse the police’s behavior in such incidents, routinely engaging in massive logical fallacies to arrive at (what we can only presume in the face of such a consistent pattern of behavior) the result that you wish to be true.
The really telling point, however, is you leaping to the defense of dehumanized Trump supporters and repeatedly emphasizing how much the singular incident of those supporters being spat upon has affected you. In contrast, you have never spoken up on this forum against the rhetoric being espoused by his followers that dehumanizes entire ethnic groups and religions.
So I’ll say this: You claim to be a moderate. You may even possibly be one. But every single position and stance that you have vocally taken have not been moderate positions. The closest that you have to that is the golden mean fallacy, where you attempt to blame both sides, even when the degree of offense and incidence is nowhere near equal. But your positions that you have taken have all been emphatically those of a right-wing nature, and you have not even taken token left-wing positions or stances on other topics. As a result, you claim one position, but your words spoken–and the words that you haven’t spoken–speak louder than your claimed view.
