I'm not worried about the hypothetical pain inflected on the hypothetical white guy. I'm worried that whenever justices is meted out by unorganized force it's very difficult to tell the good guys from the bad guys. That's the problem with saying that we should rely on the Good Guy with the Gun to protect us from the Bad Guy with the Gun. No guns in this particular case, and it sure looks like Justice was served, again in this particular case. It's also undeniable that calling on organized force (police) would probably have been worse than useless, given the history of police brutality in this country.

But soldiers wear uniforms so they can tell who they are supposed to shoot. When there are no uniforms, I think that skin color would become the default substitute. I'm not at all sure it would have been obvious in the heat of battle that one of the white guys was on the right side, particularly as the battle got bigger, and not every one could see everything that was going on. Your claim that it would have been obvious is as hypothetical and invented as my claim that it might not be. That's as good as any of us can get when talking about this kind of subject.

One thing that isn't hypothetical: (I believe) The White Guy was not defended by other white strangers "showing up for the bullies" just because they were white. That is what happened at Tulsa, Rosewood, Ocoee etc. But in this case the only bullies who showed up were the original bully's friends, and the Black guy got support from Black strangers. That's one of the main reasons the bullies lost. That's a good thing, which served justice well, and perhaps it is cause for hope. And as far as I know, the Police behaved reasonably well when they did show up.