You can bring out all the anecdotal evidence you can find in support of your views or to counter someone else's views. The only thing they prove are that claims made stating that "This is the way it is in every situation" are false.
Would anyone actually claim that no innocent people are ever killed by cops who make bad decisions influenced by racial prejudice?
Would anyone actually claim that all cops are racist?
My personal experiences include exceptions to both positions. How about yours? People have a tendency to give credibility to those with whom they share the most commonality, making anecdotes very powerful persuasive tools but they are still logical fallacies.
My 2 cents is that people will usually go looking for information to back up their own positions and some people will use what they find to bolster their resolve rather than caring why someone may hold the other position. Name calling and belittling are signs of intellectual weakness.
Rioting is obviously counterproductive, so is knee jerk support for all law enforcement actions but both are easier to do than finding a real solution to the problem of why people are so willing to automatically assume the worst from a bad situation. Personal experience has a big influence over attitude. I think both "sides" here suffer from fallacious circular reasoning.
A healthy conversation can include anecdotes but they should not be weighed as facts which define the whole situation. They should be heard and considered as the background for why someone feels the way they do. If you have already made up your mind and found no validity to the opposite point of view you may just be drinking your own 'Jonestown' cool aid.