Sorry, re-reading that, it is badly worded. I meant I don't understand what upset him so much that he was disciplined for it.

But that leads back to my whole point about lack of context.

We don't know (from this video) WHY she talked about white male privilege and whether it was warranted, and equally, I don't understand why he reacted the way he did.

So, doing some research on this, it turns out that, when presented with the statistic that transgender people are 3.32 times more likely to experience police violence, he said "My wife has never been part of police violence, Most of the people that I know have never accused the police of violence. So I guess I don't get where that statistic comes from."

Ok, let's put the white privilege thing aside for a second. Can we all agree that that is a fucking dumb arse response? "People in Africa are starving." "Nonsense, I just had a cheeseburger". FFS.

It's at that point that Weber says "it's because of your white male privilege".

Now whether that response was merited is debatable. Personally, I feel like it's probably uncalled for, but I can also see where she's coming from.

Either way, it certainly doesn't merit Weber being put on administrative leave. As for the response, it was definitely unnecessary, but it was also not THAT bad.

I fail to see why the whole thing needed to go to disciplinary proceedings at all, when it could have been sorted out by making them both sit down and talk like grown-ups.

This article covers the exchange a little better:
https://lynx.media/2017/12/06/police-captain-placed-leave-white-male-privilege-remark/

From my take the white male privilege comment seemed pretty accurate since the guy was arguing that the statistics from a study must be false since he hadn't personally experienced the activities that had been studied.

I feel like we’re not getting the whole story here.

Out of context, it’s hard to know why she said anything about white male privilege (and no, that’s not a racist statement, it’s a sociological fact).

It’s equally hard to see why he got so upset he was disciplined.

Look north up here to Canada. Section 718.2(e) of our criminal code:
all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

Call it my white male privilege but I don't accept the SJW definitions of racism and instead go by the dictionary definition:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

That is to say, differential treatment based solely on race is racist. In Canada, we still have racist laws as part of our legal code. The fact it's purpose is try and help a minority doesn't change the fact it is still a racist law. Personally, I hold to this crazy notion that racism is still wrong. In theory this specific law was meant to offset the disproportionate imprisonment of aboriginal people in our justice system. In practice though, violent crimes are most often not random and are inflicted on people known to the assailant. So, in practice this has meant less prison time for aboriginal defenders, but it's also meant that aboriginal victims see their attackers typically getting lighter sentencing as well.

Racism is wrong, but you are mistaken to say that the far left doesn't itself indulge in it's own forms of racism. You don't have to google long to find far left SJW's declaring that only white people can be racist and only males can be sexist...