Saw this a few days ago and found it thoughtful. I do think media should largely abandon focus /shorthand /emphasis on “unarmed” victims - which suggests that whether someone is armed or unarmed is how we should gauge whether an incident is acceptable https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2020/unarmed-black-man-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

The use of “unarmed” as a trigger word to signal to the reader “this was bad” breaks down in cases where an armed person is killed unjustifiably (Philando Castile) or the officer/initial police report wrongfully says the victim was armed (Walter Scott)

The vast majority of people shot and killed by police are, according to police, armed. Media emphasis on “unarmed” can risk discouraging scrutiny of “armed” victim cases - despite many that clearly deserve such scrutiny (Corey Jones, Alton Sterling, Keith Lamont Scott, Castile)

Obviously this is something I’ve spent time thinking about. And I see it as part of a larger, needed discussion about how much reporting takes on/valorizes the law enforcement nomenclature - “in the line of duty,” “officer involved shooting” - at the detriment of clarity/scrutiny