I have trouble seeing how someone can believe both A and B at the same time:

A) "The moment someone tries to take your gun, you should assume they& #39;re trying to kill you, and from that moment on you have the right to preemptively use deadly force."
B) "If a random man approaches you gun-in-hand and shows no badge, you should NOT assume he& #39;s trying to kill you, and you don& #39;t have the right to use ANY force in response."
In self-defense, there& #39;s a general principle that you don& #39;t have to wait for someone to *actually* try to kill you before using force.

If you extend that principle to the men who killed Arbery, then you should also extend it to Arbery& #39;s attempt to grab the gun.
Also, it& #39;s irrelevant whether the man pointed the gun at him or simply carried the gun while issuing a demand.

If I demand that you do something, and lift up my shirt to reveal a gun in my waistband, that& #39;s an implicit threat to use deadly force if you don& #39;t comply...(cont& #39;d)
...At that moment, you have the right to use preemptive force in self-defense, including trying to disarm me. Crucially, you do not have to wait and see if I make good on my implicit threat to try and disarm me...(cont& #39;d)
If you are thinking "he wouldn& #39;t have gotten shot if he hadn& #39;t lunged for the gun," you& #39;re totally right and totally missing the point by starting the story in the middle: i.e., he also wouldn& #39;t have gotten shot if they didn& #39;t pull up on him with guns to begin with.
FWIW, I agree that left-wing media sources tend to push the racism angle regardless of the facts, and is only interested in covering white-on-black crimes (never the reverse). Still, neither of those observations should color your interpretation of this particular case.
You can follow @coldxman.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: