How I think people should see things is not important. The point is, that nobody is the villain of their own story. And nobody who supports what I would call police brutality thinks that they are supporting police brutality, because they're not drawing the line on where 'police brutality' starts in the same place that I am. That's why I said what I said: you responded to a comment of "If we all agreed that there should be zero acts of police brutality, then the issue would be resolved" with "I am not sure anybody supporting police brutality." What I am saying is that the reason why the issue won't be resolved any time soon is because we don't all agree that there should be zero acts of police brutality. It's just that the people who support police brutality would never say that, in public. Whether that's because they don't think of it as police brutality, or because they simply have enough "sense" to not say the quiet part out loud... I can't read minds, so I can't say.
I find these statements to be incongruous; we may not be working from the same definition of "accept."
Whose right to do what? Engage in police brutality? Isn't that what we're talking about, here?
Do the choices that you don't approve of your child making cause physical or material harm to anyone other than your child? Because I hope that what isn't happening here is somebody taking an issue, and presenting it in a manner that dilutes or removes all of the nuance and context from that issue, and then holding another issue next to it, and asking, "Well, aren't these two things the same?" Because I can't imagine what bearing your child's behavior could have on a conversation about police brutality, unless your child is a police officer, who has been charged and/or accused of engaging in police brutality.