Here in NYC, Eric Adams asked the folks in Albany to change the bail laws. Specifically, he thinks judges should be allowed to consider a defendant’s “dangerousness” when deciding if bail is to be offered. That means a judge may decide to keep someone in jail if the judge thinks someone may commit more crime if released (currently, judges can consider only flight risk factors)

The left-wing folks have attacked Adams for his request, claiming that a "dangerousness" standard would be racist

One group said: “Adding a ‘dangerousness provision’ to the existing bail statutewould only cycle more Black and Latinx New Yorkers through our broken and punitive criminal legal system, feeding mass incarceration" ... where there is discretion, racial bias will manifest itself. Determinations based on dangerousness cannot be made free from implicit bias, and thereforeracially disparate results are inevitable."
.
.
.
But doesn't the whole system rely on the presumption that judges can refrain from racism and bias? If you can't trust a judge to handle a bail hearing without being racist, then how do you trust a judge to handle decisions about rules of evidence, jury selection, or standard objections during a trial? The criticism that dangerousness = racism is basically a criticism of judges

So if I'm a kungfu master and am trialed in court, I could not be offered bail because I am a weapon in itself?

He is implying the "dangerousness" would be based on crime statistical data which makes it seem like he has access to other data.

"It's not racist, but it could be" is what I think he is saying.

I'd love to put a white liberal in some danger

I think dangerousness would be up the judge's discretion (as it is in 49 states and the federal government). Judges would use the person's criminal history, the details of the alleged crime, and their sheer intuition / gut to decide if the person should be held in jail

OP was asking how a person who thinks everything is racist would interpret as worded in title and quote.