Your logic is completely flawed. Consider the following:
The White American cannot be racist to a White police officer. They are of the same race.
This is a hypothetical situation with no context. In real life, if a police man pins someone to the ground, black white or otherwise in America, nobody screams racist straight away. The accusations usually follows a perceived injustice.
Calling someone a racist does not make you racist. It means you're levelling false accusations. The world 'racist' has a specific meaning which is linked to an institutionalised power structure... not just name calling.
(probably the most important one) It is not illegal, and there is nothing wrong with being or living in a high crime area. The police does not have the right to treat you any differently depending on where you live.
I suggest researching more about the word 'racism' and what it truly means.
Yes. I agree that racism is not just "I don't like you because of your skin color or ethnic group". That's just discrimination. Racism is systemic and yes it is a power structure that embodies the idea of ethnic "supremacy". Laws, economics, etc.
That definition in the snapshot is so shallow and does not mention anything regarding power structures or hierarchy which would actually be the right definition.
As for as I am concerned, racism is more complex than following a black-white stereotype. So a white can call another racist if they consider each other of different sects or tribes, that sounds more like tribalism but they all the same to me.
I don't have to read about racism as I am stating racism as any form of stereotypic judgement in this case.
The story could be clearly flawed with the high crime Neighbourhood clause I added but the story is not completely flawed.
Calling a white man a racist without a pre-knowledge of who they are sounds like a stereotypic judgement which fits the definition of racism I am citing.
The story is flawed but not completely flawed.
Correct.
The are not the same. What you've described in that sentence are have their own names: sectarianism and tribalism. Both distinct and different from racism. Racism demands that you're of different races by definition.
You really do, as you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word. Incorrectly calling someone a racist by assuming they are racist based on the fact that they're white is not being racist, it's levelling false accusations. Being racist is a different thing, and using it to describe name calling trivialises it's impact. Racism is not a generic term, it has a specific and defined meaning. That's all I'm saying.
The accusations the black man levelled were on the basis that the policeman is white
Even if I want to follow the definition of racism, I am still in line.
More so, words get their definitions from usage. Words evolve over time. So racism doesn't necessarily have to be so rigidly defined.