There may be an abstract way in which your rebuttal to mrd is or should be correct but in fact it just does not reflect reality. 

Prosecutors represent the State first and foremost> and their job is to represent and protect the State, people are secondary >and the police are part of the State.

Ridiculous? Hardly. The first part of that statement is absolutely correct [and so to ridicule it is ridiculous] and the second part is, in almost every case, the reality we live in, and is a reality that causes disproportionate grief in minority communities. And finally, the third part, “the police are part of the State”, is also absolutely true in fact and by definition. When the title of a transcript of a court case reads, The State vs DeShawn Washington”, for example, there is in fact a representative of the State who ‘represents’ the State in an attempt to get a conviction. That representative is the prosecutor. “Prosecutors represent the people in that their goal is to punish crime”. In an actual trial the ‘people’ is differentiated from the State and is an individual, as is the prosecutor. and the goal of the State, through the very imperfect prosecutor who is and must be in almost every instance a political operator, is to get a conviction. The method of the prosecutor is not to lay out a full case but rather the part that will convict the defendant. It is up to the defendant’s representative to defend against the case made by the State which is based on evidence gathered by an organ of the State, the police. Ideally, if the representation of the people of which the individual is a part was the goal there would be an honest pursuit of the truth and there would not be the huge numbers of prosecutorial malfeasance done for the purpose of getting a conviction when the truth would set someone free. In a more ideal situation [as opposed to the reality of our adversarial legal system] after the ‘truth’ was determined and when that truth is that a crime had been committed by the defendant, the judge, often with input from the jury and who is  the one who decides the punishment, would determine appropriate punishment. Appropriate punishment [forget rehabilitation or correction] is extremely subjective and the very common failure to overcome biases of one sort or another in its determination is too obvious.

Any part of that imperfect system can be made more imperfect by corruption whether the corruption is deliberate or merely the representation of the common and ordinary imperfections of ordinary people. That the system is in fact often, if not usually, corrupted is obvious and there are many theories as to why that is the case. Some theories involve conspiracies among elements of the State which share motives. I bet you could, in about a minute, find and post an example of corruption by the legal system that did actually involve a de facto conspiracy by elements of State law enforcement agencies. I know I could. 

I knew you wouldn't answer the question since an honest answer would force you to admit barefoot is right. Are you saying that the trend of making toy guns as realistic as possible is a good thing and should continue? As I said safety experts have advised making toy guns a bright color for decades. Long before BLM, Tamir and others. It's not a new idea it's a common sense safety regulation. You're so far off the deep end you even claimed people were suggesting different types of toy guns for blacks and whites. This conversation is too stupid to continue.