Is It Justifiable To Shoot An “UNARMED” Person?

In Articles by Steven Denny0 Comments

On average, almost 800 murders a year occur, literally at the Hands/Fists/Feet/Etc of another person according to FBI homicide statistics. People beaten, kicked, stomped, strangled and asphyxiated by someone who was “technically” unarmed. A recent case of an “unarmed” homeless man, shot by LAPD, is a prime example and Steven Crowder of Louder With Crowder give an excellent, if somewhat snarky, play by play breakdown of the incident caught on tape.

Of course other prominent examples come to mind as well, such as the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case where despite the witnessed “ground and pound” beatdown Zimmerman received many still feel he was not justified in shooting an “unarmed teen.” Ferguson Missouri went up in flames over the police shooting of an “unarmed young man” in the Officer Darren Wilson/Michael Brown case, even though it was shown that Michael Brown was a strong arm thug and eye-witness accounts supported Officer Wilson’s justification for the use of deadly force. Both cases even warranted an additional review by the Department of Justice in search of civil rights violations and both resulted in NO CHARGES BEING FILED. Still there is a new mantra in America that questions any shooting where both parties are not packing heat. The formula for all of these headlines is the same; (X shoots) + (UNARMED Y) x (racial coefficient) = HEADLINE.

It’s as if America has become so focused on guns, as well as polarized for or against, that the ONLY justification to use a gun is to defend against a gun. It’s just not fair to shoot someone that doesn’t have a gun, right? A famous quote comes to mind here, “If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.” ~ John Steinbeck. The point is, when it comes to defending your own well-being or possibly your LIFE, fairness goes right out the window. Should you use just enough force to keep from getting hurt too bad? Uh, NO! In a life or death situation, who (other than a Monday morning quarterback) can determine what amount of force is just enough? When faced with potential serious bodily harm or death, ENDING the threat is the only viable option. Remember, when you are armed and your attacker is not, the gun is still in play, whether YOU use it or they take it and use it against you.

I believe the subtext of this entire line of conversation is much more insidious than mere sensationalism or even genuine outrage at a real or perceived injustice. The undercurrent here seems to be that people with guns, even law enforcement, have a tendency to just shoot unarmed people. It is a subtle insinuation that GUNS are the problem. Of course such subtlety is lost on a population that gets it’s News and information from little more than headlines, sound bytes or in a 140 characters or less. I’m sure many will dismiss my observations as “conspiracy theory” or over-analysis as well, but that being said I hope you will think about it and watch the News a little closer, read the headlines a little more critically and most of all get the facts and evidence before jumping to conclusions. Unarmed DOES NOT mean there is no danger or a threat, so don’t let yourself be fooled. It could cost you YOUR LIFE if you ever find yourself in such a situation.

If being “unarmed” is such a hazard to your health, then the logical thing to do is ARM YOURSELF! Lock and Load My Friends.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.