Because it’s irrelevant when we’re talking about the risk of being a member of the group?

In terms of "risk" they're second only to black males. Women, on the other hand, regardless of race, are extremely unlikely to be shot by police. So why are they on the list?

Oh, I see, reading your previous comment again – you interpreted it as a “list of all the groups that need to be wary of police”. It’s not that, it’s just about “danger” in a broad sense.

Broadly speaking, white males are second only to black males in terms of being targets of violence in the United States. That's all violence, not just the police inflicted kind.

It’s true that police militarization is a problem for everyone. The fact remains that any particular person of color is more likely to be killed by police than any particular white person is, and that’s a meaningful difference in the lives of persons of color.

That's not true. Asian males, for example, are much less likely to be shot by police than white males. Or are they not people of color?

That’s true and probably because the framing of the debate is mostly along the lines of race when income is probably the best indicator and most minority groups with some exceptions are disadvantaged in the US.

That's not the case the parent is making, however. The parent is saying that the risk is disproportionately greater for black males and/or other minority groups at large.