You’d think gun right activists would more concerned with this reality. But I can assume the skin color without reading the article and that is a more uncomfortable reality for them to acknowledge; the reason some of them need to be armed.
I think it’s relevant because it’s evidence the teen was not a threat. I don’t think it’s implying an armed individual would automatically be a threat.
There are articles that do draw that false equivalence, and they deserve being called out. I don’t think this is one of them.
Also, do you believe that a suspect needs to shoot first before being considered a threat by police? I would say “armed and brandishing” would make the individual a legitimate threat.
Tell the story for what it. A police officer shot a child. What they were or weren’t suspected of, whether they had a weapon or not, doesn’t matter.
I mean, yes it does. Like it or not, in the US it’s not unheard of for a 14 year old to have a gun. The fact that he was unarmed is very relevant.
It’s not illegal to be armed. It’s also not a death sentence. It’s only relevant if they’re armed AND shooting.
You’d think gun right activists would more concerned with this reality. But I can assume the skin color without reading the article and that is a more uncomfortable reality for them to acknowledge; the reason some of them need to be armed.
Spot on. The sad fact is, the best gun reform we ever got was when the black panthers decided to arm themselves.
I think it’s relevant because it’s evidence the teen was not a threat. I don’t think it’s implying an armed individual would automatically be a threat.
There are articles that do draw that false equivalence, and they deserve being called out. I don’t think this is one of them.
Also, do you believe that a suspect needs to shoot first before being considered a threat by police? I would say “armed and brandishing” would make the individual a legitimate threat.
That’s fair. I’d read an article titled with that.