Hard to generalize, but I'll try. I'm sure some do, but most that I experience, like most Americans I talk with, don't really do those things. They'll invoke current examples, and assert general German (or American) attitudes and skills, but don't seem to think that historical figures or events are things they can take credit/blame for

I just mean that I am part of the group that thinks murder outside of war should be illegal. I not a relativist in the sense that for others its negation should/could hold. I think they are wrong and misguided and their reasons for their belief and their stated reasons are insufficient. I could be deluded that everybody things that murder is wrong. but no there are people that genuinely believe and effectively enact that running a country by a few murders is appropriate.

Stane on hate speech that is encouraging and calling for criminal acts is okay to be punishable but purely communicative speech should be allowed. Having a minority political opinion should not in itself be a basis for punishment (and is not sufficient grounds for "political instability" security arguments).

But even if the speech freeness conditions are not perfect I don't think it gives basis to go invade or mess too much with internal affairs of a state. But it does mean for me that it is more okay to treat the countrys offiical stance to be attirbuted as of their opinion on who are in (de facto) power. There are lines of argument in that if the leadership deviates too much from the will of the people they would bother to revolt to revoke the technically illegimately held power. Thus even power illegimately gained needs to be atleast passively accepted granting it a sort of genuine legitimacy. But here arguments about how cost-effective it is to genuinely influence the political direction are strong. If there is a official position and disagreeing with it gets you murdered it does tell what the legitimate stance would be.

I am suspecting taht the reason is that poors are more liekly to commit crimes and using race as a proxy for social-economical status doesn't add anything significant. That is "high-black area-> high-crime area" is a correlation not a causation.

I guess my main emphasis was that police have more readiness to use force against blacks than against whites. The tendency for media to give attention selectively doesn't totally explain it. There are also additional media effects that play a role. A story is more likely to be a news story if it features a white victim as opposed to a black victim. And for example in the recent gorilla story somehow the father that was not on the scene was found relevant even with his past being somehow relevant. A embarassing reason for it is probably because there were details that resonated with casting that person in a villain role.

Black people are searched more often, their treatment while police direct actions towards them is more hostile. a black person doesn't need to exhibit any actual sign of terror such as wielding weapon or be found near a crime scene or anythign like that. Just being black makes police likely to treat you as a higher threat. This is against the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". One can argue whether using skin color as part of threat assement is legimate or that it doesn't happen. But most of the time it seems its seen as illegimate and it does happen.