The main thrust of your argument is that the law shouldn't be expanded to cover situations like this shooting because of disparate impact across races. Seems like the same argument could be applied to laws against theft, rape, murder, the list goes on.
I think a better analysis would compare alleged costs vs. alleged benefits of the change. You touch on it a bit where you seem to accept the tradeoffs in expanding domestic violence and sexual assault. But any strong argument here would have to flesh out both sides of the tradeoff and compare them. As it is, you're just making a fully general argument against criminal laws.
The main thrust of your argument is that the law shouldn't be expanded to cover situations like this shooting because of disparate impact across races. Seems like the same argument could be applied to laws against theft, rape, murder, the list goes on.
I think a better analysis would compare alleged costs vs. alleged benefits of the change. You touch on it a bit where you seem to accept the tradeoffs in expanding domestic violence and sexual assault. But any strong argument here would have to flesh out both sides of the tradeoff and compare them. As it is, you're just making a fully general argument against criminal laws.