• surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not illegal to be armed. It’s also not a death sentence. It’s only relevant if they’re armed AND shooting.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Spot on. The sad fact is, the best gun reform we ever got was when the black panthers decided to arm themselves.

    • CaptainBuckleroy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • CaptainBuckleroy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.