Oh, I get it now. This is about the left and how they as a collective approach the subject of white privilege & not actually about white privilege. Amirite? No wonder I couldn't understand what you're on about.
A debate about God isn't actually about God since that isn't a thing; but in the vernacular we call debates about Christians' claims that there's a God "debates about God" anyway. What I'm talking about is Hawn's claim that "white privilege is a fact." Whether you count that as talking about white privilege is between you and your idiolect.
I did answer your question though. It's precisely how Rhea interpreted it. I meant any of the options besides D (the other options made D unnecessary to get my point across) because the police treating everyone equally wouldn't have been racist. Is that not an answer to your question?
Why does this have to be like pulling teeth? I didn't ask you what wouldn't have been racist. The fact that I immediately thought up three non-racist alternative things they could have done ought to have clued you in that I already knew how they could have been not racist, so why you felt that's the information I was asking for is a mite peculiar. No, you didn't answer my question. Suppose an exchange went like this:
Alice: There's an out-of-control trolley headed for five people who can't be gotten out of the way. Cindy is at a lever she can use to divert the trolley to another track, on which there's only one person the trolley will kill. There's no way for her to save everyone. What should Cindy do?
Bob: Cindy should not base her choice on what color the six people are because that would be racist.
Did Bob answer Alice's question? No, he did not. Answering Alice's question would involve Bob saying "Cindy should pull the lever." or "Cindy should let the trolley continue on its current path.".
Now, if what you're getting at is that you are sincerely indifferent as to which of the three options, a, b, or c, the police should have taken, well, (1) that means you have really bizarre psychology, but I guess it takes all kinds; and (2) that's not a reasonable thing for you to be indifferent about so I'm going to argue the point and try to persuade you to change your mind. For example, the police should certainly not have chosen option c, "Made the five of you draw straws for the three available sleep-in-the-train-station slots". Police are tasked to enforce the law and protect public safety, not to get their jollies by going on arbitrary power trips at the expense of the citizenry just because they can. The legislature had certainly not enacted a law saying "Homeless people may spend the night in train stations provided it's no more than three per station.". And the notion that having five of you there was a threat to public safety but three was safe for everyone is too ridiculous to take seriously. The police did not have a reason to eject exactly two of you and police shouldn't do things to the public that they have no reason to do.
But I don't think sincere indifference is what you were getting at. I think you've been just persistently refusing to take my question at face value. Why? Is it because you don't know where I'm going with it so you deduced I must have meant something else? Is it because you don't know where I'm going with it so you're hedging your bets until you know which answer will make it easier for you to win the argument? Is it because you do know where I'm going with it and that's a conversation you don't want to have?