A decision to prosecute a police officer for a misuse of force requires a determination that protocols were not followed when that force was used.

I don’t know about the Gore case, but if the implication of the image is that the only possible reason for the differences between these two cases is the race of the the two officers, then that’s misleading. It’s a possible reason, but to show that, you need to look at the events in connection with the occurrences, rather than just a macro comparing the outcomes.

In the case of the Wilson case, the physical evidence (autopsy reports, photographs of the car, of the scene, etc.) and those witnesses consistent with that physical evidence (e.g., those not saying he was shot with his hands up, in the back, or “execution style” at point-blank range – which was not corroborated by the autopsy) tended to exonerate Wilson and indicate he followed procedures.

To infer racism, the evidence would have to similarly exonerate Gore of not following protocols -- i.e., their races must be the only substantive difference, indicating that was the reason for the difference in treatment.

I’m interested to see if that’s the case, but there’s a lot more to it than, “White cop not indicted; black cop charged with felony.” We have to have a deeper analysis than that.

While I applaud your reasoning and fully agree with you, I must also add that your reasoning will fall on deaf ears. When someone who uploads a picture like this asks you to 'explain this', they aren't actually asking for an explanation. They likely don't care much for critical thinking in the first place.