• iAmTheTot@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • 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.