So let's explore these types of statements a bit deeper.

Here is a story:

Wylie man convicted of molesting child over three-year period

http://crimeblog.dallasne...riod.html/

Let's even add a stat (which you didn't but hey, let's make this statement a bit more legit).

96% of offenders in all reported cases of child molestation reported to law enforcement were male.

So let's come to the same conclusion that you came to about teens.

So keep this molestation in mind next time someone with a political agenda attempts to paint a male as harmless around children.

Are you harmless around children? Should we presume that you are not because of the statistic mentioned above? Should we presume that you are not harmless because you could be a child molester? Should we prevent you from being around a child, just in case?

More importantly, would it be beneficial to the general populace for me to make the above statement?

[Edited 9/22/15 9:23am]

free2bfreeda said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

free2bfreeda said: Again this topic is about the misnomer that an unharmed teen can not pose a threat of serious harm. So your point of mental illness supports the op. A person is ill that has little if any bearing (moral or legal) on us of force needed to stop them. So thank you for supporting my point.

many teens unarmed or no can pose a threat especially if the have (overlooked) mental or emotional issues.

i've never understood your point other that you seem to relish in posting an urban teen as though this teen is reipresentative of his community.

so what IS your point/agenda in posting this obviously (urban community) covertly targeted issue.

urban? when have i ever limited anything to any such demographic? I never suggested this kid was representative of anyone. Just that it proves that being unarmed is not evidence of lack of ability to do harm. So when they say "Unarmed" do not assume "not dangerous." Which IS sometimes the spin intended when it is reported as such.

As to overlooked mental issues... again that seems to support my OP that armed or not a person teen, adult, and even some pre-teens can be dangerous. The issue (and it is an issue) of unknown or under-treated mental illness is a different issue almost totally separated. And I say that as in that moment: even if the person is KNOWN to be ill if they appear to pose a threat then their condition is not something that can be considered in terms of level of force.

[Edited 9/22/15 9:36am]

JustErin said:

I mean, this comment:

So keep this brutally in mind next time someone with a political agenda attempts to paint an unarmed teen as harmless

can easily be changed to this and have the same truth:

So keep this innocence in mind next time someone with a political agenda attempts to paint an unarmed teen as dangerous.

and if the media did not go out of its way to mention "unarmed" as if the necessarily meant the use of force was not justifed you would have a better point. And the two sentences are not incompatible.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

JustErin said:

I mean, this comment:

So keep this brutally in mind next time someone with a political agenda attempts to paint an unarmed teen as harmless

can easily be changed to this and have the same truth:

So keep this innocence in mind next time someone with a political agenda attempts to paint an unarmed teen as dangerous.

and if the media did not go out of its way to mention "unarmed" as if the necessarily meant the use of force was not justifed you would have a better point. And the two sentences are not incompatible.

But if a teen is unarmed, why would they not say that? If the teen had a weapon should that be omitted in the media as well?

The two sentences are compatible.

What specific case are you referencing where the media mentioned an "unarmed teen"?

JustErin said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

and if the media did not go out of its way to mention "unarmed" as if the necessarily meant the use of force was not justifed you would have a better point. And the two sentences are not incompatible.

But if a teen is unarmed, why would they not say that? If the teen had a weapon should that be omitted in the media as well?

what does it have to do with the story other than to make it seem the cops over reacted?

The two sentences are compatible.

that is what i said.

What specific case are you referencing where the media mentioned an "unarmed teen"?

Mike brown

OnlyNDaUsa said:

free2bfreeda said:

seems when certain people from certain communities go off. many want to discount them having some psychological illness problems.

the teen related to this thread really looks like he needs counseling. it's obvious that he was out of control.

Again this topic is about the misnomer that an unharmed teen can not pose a threat of serious harm. So your point of mental illness supports the op. A person is ill that has little if any bearing (moral or legal) on us of force needed to stop them. So thank you for supporting my point.

you tryin to align yoself with somethin i said... typical

[Edited 9/22/15 13:31pm]

OnlyNDaUsa said:

KingBAD said:

as i said, guilty by mental defect will be given three out of the four examples i looked at

and how is "oh this happened in Baltimore..........surprise surprise..........same shit, different day there........." not under the "baiting" rule of thought... i've said much milder about 'sectional people' and had my shit deleted...

this falls unda the "thugs and criminals" type of sideways shit y'all frown on...

Not sure why you think the city matters.

that was a comment from your ilk

OnlyNDaUsa said:

JustErin said:

But if a teen is unarmed, why would they not say that? If the teen had a weapon should that be omitted in the media as well?

what does it have to do with the story other than to make it seem the cops over reacted?

The two sentences are compatible.

that is what i said.

What specific case are you referencing where the media mentioned an "unarmed teen"?

Mike brown

It has to do with the story because that is a fact they can state. Teen was unarmed. Cop shoots kid, kid did not have a weapon.

They state the facts and then it is open to discussion and the gathering of more/other facts as to whether it was justified or not. You interpret a fact being stated as a political agenda. I see is as a what it is, a fact.

You were making the statement that it doesn't matter if a teen is armed or not, he can still do serious damage. Again, no one has ever disputed this fact....the question is, should every single person just be shot because they could be dangerous even if they do not have a weapon? Should every single cop be automatically exonerated of unjustifiable force because every single person could be dangerous?

Should I assume that you're a child molester because you could be?

I'll ask again, why do you feel the need to make this grand proclamation? Who specifically stated that no unarmed teen could ever be a threat?

And why did you not just say that you were specifically referencing Mike Brown? Did you say you were earlier? I missed it if you did.

You want to use this story of a kid beating up another kid as proof that the shooting of Brown was justified? Is that the purpose of this thread?

JustErin said:

via a replay (post # 64)

ur word patterns here gave me a laugh, 'cause they are so true. and the embolded is such a relevant question.

[Edited 9/22/15 12:16pm]

JustErin said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It has to do with the story because that is a fact they can state. Teen was unarmed. Cop shoots kid, kid did not have a weapon.

They state the facts and then it is open to discussion and the gathering of more/other facts as to whether it was justified or not. You interpret a fact being stated as a political agenda. I see is as a what it is, a fact.

You were making the statement that it doesn't matter if a teen is armed or not, he can still do serious damage. Again, no one has ever disputed this fact....the question is, should every single person just be shot because they could be dangerous even if they do not have a weapon? Should every single cop be automatically exonerated of unjustifiable force because every single person could be dangerous?

Should I assume that you're a child molester because you could be?

I'll ask again, why do you feel the need to make this grand proclamation? Who specifically stated that no unarmed teen could ever be a threat?

And why did you not just say that you were specifically referencing Mike Brown? Did you say you were earlier? I missed it if you did.

You want to use this story of a kid beating up another kid as proof that the shooting of Brown was justified? Is that the purpose of this thread?

And there it is....

OnlyNDaUsa said:

JustErin said:

But if a teen is unarmed, why would they not say that? If the teen had a weapon should that be omitted in the media as well?

what does it have to do with the story other than to make it seem the cops over reacted?

The two sentences are compatible.

that is what i said.

What specific case are you referencing where the media mentioned an "unarmed teen"?

Mike brown

After three pages of tap dancing your real agenda is finally revealed. SMH.

y'all act like you ain't ever met dude before,

breath smellin like feet alla time...

KingBAD said:

y'all act like you ain't ever met dude before,

breath smellin like feet alla time...

Trust and believe, some of us are used to the tap dancing. That's why he got the reception he did.

Interesting how he completely ignored the person who brought up Baltimore and tried to pin it on you.

SSDD with him.

JustErin said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It has to do with the story because that is a fact they can state. Teen was unarmed. Cop shoots kid, kid did not have a weapon.

They state the facts and then it is open to discussion and the gathering of more/other facts as to whether it was justified or not. You interpret a fact being stated as a political agenda. I see is as a what it is, a fact.

You were making the statement that it doesn't matter if a teen is armed or not, he can still do serious damage. Again, no one has ever disputed this fact....the question is, should every single person just be shot because they could be dangerous even if they do not have a weapon? Should every single cop be automatically exonerated of unjustifiable force because every single person could be dangerous?

Should I assume that you're a child molester because you could be?

I'll ask again, why do you feel the need to make this grand proclamation? Who specifically stated that no unarmed teen could ever be a threat?

And why did you not just say that you were specifically referencing Mike Brown? Did you say you were earlier? I missed it if you did.

You want to use this story of a kid beating up another kid as proof that the shooting of Brown was justified? Is that the purpose of this thread?

you are making a whole lot of really wild and untrue assumptions here. I have never ever said Brown's shooting was justified. Not once. And that is not what I was doing here either. I did not specifically have anyone in mind. wasn't it you that asked for a specific example? It is kind of weird to ask for an example and then get all twist when i give one....and then make up a libelous statement against me?

KingBAD said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

free2bfreeda said: Again this topic is about the misnomer that an unharmed teen can not pose a threat of serious harm. So your point of mental illness supports the op. A person is ill that has little if any bearing (moral or legal) on us of force needed to stop them. So thank you for supporting my point.

you tryin to align yoself with somethin i said... typical

[Edited 9/22/15 13:31pm]

i do not think i said that to you...but if you happen to agree with me that some people are mentally ill and thus may be even more willing and able to pose a serious threat then that is cool. I do not know why anyone would not agree with me on that point?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

KingBAD said:

you tryin to align yoself with somethin i said... typical

[Edited 9/22/15 13:31pm]

i do not think i said that to you...but if you happen to agree with me that some people are mentally ill and thus may be even more willing and able to pose a serious threat then that is cool. I do not know why anyone would not agree with me on that point?

is the only thing you got right... HOWEVER as always your statement represented SOME and not others.

i put it in proper perspective and claified your intent in writing what you wrote to those who may not get where you be goin with yo bullshit. "I LOVE YOU MAN!!!"

CONSISTANCY...

you don't fail in that department, so you an open book where that's concerned.

i know yo worldview was given to you by others who's world view was stilted from jump.

so regardless to many things yo as one dimentional as one can get...

that's usually why your arguments fail except with other folks with challenges...

believe me.... i been tryin to help you.

i figga IF there is any posibility that you will voluntarily take yo foot out yo mouth,

it will be with somethin i said

OnlyNDaUsa said:

KingBAD said:

you tryin to align yoself with somethin i said... typical

[Edited 9/22/15 13:31pm]

i do not think i said that to you...but if you happen to agree with me that some people are mentally ill and thus may be even more willing and able to pose a serious threat then that is cool. I do not know why anyone would not agree with me on that point?

P.S.

pay attention, i said "of your ilk" you know the ones

given the capability of sayin stoopid ass shit then gettin a pass cause erbody know they stoopid???

"your ilk" is not JUST you but folks LIKE YOU and my point is proven by the fact that even you think it was somethin you said... then (YO ERBODY... YOU DON'T WANNA MISS THIS ONE!!!) THEN opine that i might be in agreement with a thing you said... PRICELESS!!!

you and funkpill... always good for a laff that will last a week or two

KingBAD said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i do not think i said that to you...but if you happen to agree with me that some people are mentally ill and thus may be even more willing and able to pose a serious threat then that is cool. I do not know why anyone would not agree with me on that point?

is the only thing you got right... HOWEVER as always your statement represented SOME and not others.

i put it in proper perspective and claified your intent in writing what you wrote to those who may not get where you be goin with yo bullshit. "I LOVE YOU MAN!!!"

CONSISTANCY...

you don't fail in that department, so you an open book where that's concerned.

i know yo worldview was given to you by others who's world view was stilted from jump.

so regardless to many things yo as one dimentional as one can get...

that's usually why your arguments fail except with other folks with challenges...

believe me.... i been tryin to help you.

i figga IF there is any posibility that you will voluntarily take yo foot out yo mouth,

it will be with somethin i said

except you are nearly totally wrong

i'm finally understanding a certain orgers m. o.

modus operandi -> that being

always to be in opposition in all posted replies (in EVERY thread) so's to always be the center of attention.

i guess it's cool to ack lika fool as that orger continues to be in f u c knowledge denial mindset on a logical, even while sacrificing all logic.

(f u c = if you choose)

to that orger this!

if this does not apply to u then u know i'm not targeting you. but u know who u are.

only plse stop the m o, it's getting tired. (return to the light) the psychological b s is proving to be brutal (to you) stop banging your head against the walls of logic.

aren't you tired.

now back to the topic of this thread: unarmed teen...

it's said the teen suspect sean johnson has been in a program for anger mangement.

>

: http://www.wbaltv.com/new...d/35356520

>

excerpt:

in court, the state revealed Johnson required anger management counseling and twice was found guilty in the juvenile system.

In March, the case was a minor with possession of marijuana. Two years ago, it was more serious with conspiracy to commit armed robbery with a deadly weapon.

That, Johnson's lawyer said should have prompted the school system to put Johnson on a special intervention program. But he said it didn't happen.

[Edited 9/22/15 17:30pm]

free2bfreeda said:

i'm finally understanding a certain orgers m. o.

modus operandi -> that being

always to be in opposition in all posted replies (in EVERY thread) so's to always be the center of attention.

i guess it's cool to ack lika fool as that orger continues to be in f u c knowledge denial mindset on a logical, even while sacrificing all logic.

(f u c = if you choose)

to that orger this!

if this does not apply to u then u know i'm not targeting you. but u know who u are.

only plse stop the m o, it's getting tired. (return to the light) the psychological b s is proving to be brutal (to you) stop banging your head against the walls of logic.

aren't you tired.

now back to the topic of this thread: unarmed teen...

it's said the teen suspect sean johnson has been in a program for anger mangement.

>

: http://www.wbaltv.com/new...d/35356520

>

excerpt:

in court, the state revealed Johnson required anger management counseling and twice was found guilty in the juvenile system.

In March, the case was a minor with possession of marijuana. Two years ago, it was more serious with conspiracy to commit armed robbery with a deadly weapon.

That, Johnson's lawyer said should have prompted the school system to put Johnson on a special intervention program. But he said it didn't happen.

[Edited 9/22/15 17:30pm]

i'm sure his place on a school football field took presidence over all that

mental health care.

AND i told you it wouldn't take a minit to bring up his criminal past...

my issue is and always will be that OTHER kids who do WAY WORSE SHIT

seem to be built up in the news as "problem childs" with the unforunateness

to have slippped through the cracks WHITE those whoes (color) scarry build is

reported as '16 y/o men' THEN held up to a criminal past...

they mental condition in they area ain't immune to that shit that happens in them "such a nice kid" spots...

KingBAD said:

free2bfreeda said:

i'm finally understanding a certain orgers m. o.

modus operandi -> that being

always to be in opposition in all posted replies (in EVERY thread) so's to always be the center of attention.

i guess it's cool to ack lika fool as that orger continues to be in f u c knowledge denial mindset on a logical, even while sacrificing all logic.

(f u c = if you choose)

to that orger this!

if this does not apply to u then u know i'm not targeting you. but u know who u are.

only plse stop the m o, it's getting tired. (return to the light) the psychological b s is proving to be brutal (to you) stop banging your head against the walls of logic.

aren't you tired.

now back to the topic of this thread: unarmed teen...

it's said the teen suspect sean johnson has been in a program for anger mangement.

>

: http://www.wbaltv.com/new...d/35356520

>

excerpt:

in court, the state revealed Johnson required anger management counseling and twice was found guilty in the juvenile system.

In March, the case was a minor with possession of marijuana. Two years ago, it was more serious with conspiracy to commit armed robbery with a deadly weapon.

That, Johnson's lawyer said should have prompted the school system to put Johnson on a special intervention program. But he said it didn't happen.

[Edited 9/22/15 17:30pm]

i'm sure his place on a school football field took presidence over all that

mental health care.

AND i told you it wouldn't take a minit to bring up his criminal past...

my issue is and always will be that OTHER kids who do WAY WORSE SHIT

seem to be built up in the news as "problem childs" with the unforunateness

to have slippped through the cracks WHITE those whoes (color) scarry build is

reported as '16 y/o men' THEN held up to a criminal past...

they mental condition in they area ain't immune to that shit that happens in them "such a nice kid" spots...

P.S.

i told you... some folks keep they foot in they mouth

and got soggy water logged foot smell on they breath constantly...

(no names mentioned or implied)

OnlyNDaUsa said:

burtaly beats a classmate nearly to death...

http://www.wbaltv.com/new...l/35322838

this is nothing less than attempted murder. He needs life in prison. Thankfully they are charging him as an adult!

So keep this brutally in mind next time someone with a political agenda attempts to paint an unarmed teen as harmless.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

JustErin said:

It has to do with the story because that is a fact they can state. Teen was unarmed. Cop shoots kid, kid did not have a weapon.

They state the facts and then it is open to discussion and the gathering of more/other facts as to whether it was justified or not. You interpret a fact being stated as a political agenda. I see is as a what it is, a fact.

You were making the statement that it doesn't matter if a teen is armed or not, he can still do serious damage. Again, no one has ever disputed this fact....the question is, should every single person just be shot because they could be dangerous even if they do not have a weapon? Should every single cop be automatically exonerated of unjustifiable force because every single person could be dangerous?

Should I assume that you're a child molester because you could be?

I'll ask again, why do you feel the need to make this grand proclamation? Who specifically stated that no unarmed teen could ever be a threat?

And why did you not just say that you were specifically referencing Mike Brown? Did you say you were earlier? I missed it if you did.

You want to use this story of a kid beating up another kid as proof that the shooting of Brown was justified? Is that the purpose of this thread?

you are making a whole lot of really wild and untrue assumptions here. I have never ever said Brown's shooting was justified. Not once. And that is not what I was doing here either. I did not specifically have anyone in mind. wasn't it you that asked for a specific example? It is kind of weird to ask for an example and then get all twist when i give one....and then make up a libelous statement against me?

No, my dear, I only threw a bunch of questions to you - which many you have still not answered. I asked several times what you were talking about in terms of your unarmed teen comment and you eventually answered that you were talking about the Brown case so now trying to say that you didn't have anyone specific in mind doesn't fly. I didn't ask for an example I asked for you to explain what you were talking about and you finally did.

You really do not seem to understand what "libelous statement" means. Asking a question is not a libelous statement.

So this is a general thread on things that can be deadly or dangerous?

Gum. An inch of water. Four hour erections. A four hour erection in an inch of water while chewing gum? It could happen.

Horsefeathers said:

So this is a general thread on things that can be deadly or dangerous? Gum. An inch of water. Four hour erections. A four hour erection in an inch of water while chewing gum? It could happen.

runnin with a stapler while recitin the alphabet has killed more folks than people know

Horsefeathers said:

So this is a general thread on things that can be deadly or dangerous? Gum. An inch of water. Four hour erections. A four hour erection in an inch of water while chewing gum? It could happen.

Or eating a hot dog. An unarmed teen with a four hour erection in an inch of water, spits out the gum and eats a hot dog. He could choke y'know...

JustErin said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

and if the media did not go out of its way to mention "unarmed" as if the necessarily meant the use of force was not justifed you would have a better point. And the two sentences are not incompatible.

But if a teen is unarmed, why would they not say that? If the teen had a weapon should that be omitted in the media as well?

The two sentences are compatible.

What specific case are you referencing where the media mentioned an "unarmed teen"?

There have been plenty of cases where the media here in the U.S. has used "unarmed teen" for no other reason than to boost their ratings by getting you to watch and/or listen to their report. It is shock value and nothing else. I thought it was a bit ironic to use it as a thread title. It has almost 1000 views so I guess it worked. Also, I mentioned Baltimore because the school is right near the center of the Freddy Gray arrest that got so much attention. I believe "unarmed teen" was also used in that case (even though he had a knife). Whether you like it or not, some of these so called "unarmed teens" could probably fuck you up with their bare hands. I am not speaking about all cases either. Just a select few that have gotten national attention.

3rdeyedude said:

JustErin said:

But if a teen is unarmed, why would they not say that? If the teen had a weapon should that be omitted in the media as well?

The two sentences are compatible.

What specific case are you referencing where the media mentioned an "unarmed teen"?

There have been plenty of cases where the media here in the U.S. has used "unarmed teen" for no other reason than to boost their ratings by getting you to watch and/or listen to their report. It is shock value and nothing else. I thought it was a bit ironic to use it as a thread title. It has almost 1000 views so I guess it worked. Also, I mentioned Baltimore because the school is right near the center of the Freddy Gray arrest that got so much attention. I believe "unarmed teen" was also used in that case (even though he had a knife). Whether you like it or not, some of these so called "unarmed teens" could probably fuck you up with their bare hands. I am not speaking about all cases either. Just a select few that have gotten national attention.

That is nothing more than your opinion. They are simply stating a fact - that a teen was not carrying a weapon. Your interpretation on their motivation in stating a fact is irrelevant. This is not a new way of reporting, they always state the facts. You really think that a headline that says, "Cop shoots teen" will invoke less of a response? Do you want it to? Should they also omit that the person shot was a teen? Would that invoke even less of a response? Do you want it to?

Going by the responses I constantly see on here it appears that the real problem you and the OP are having in reporting these facts is that it can (and often does) then open a door to a discussion on something that somehow upsets you...but that will continue to happen whether YOU like it or not.

This thread has nothing to do with letting us all know that a teenager could "fuck you up" with their bare hands, because no one has ever stated anything contrary to this. Why do you and the OP keep stating this? You think you're schooling me on who can still be a threat without a weapon? GTFO with that shit.

I will say it again, 3 more times, since it's been said over and over and over on here but you and the OP keep ignoring it.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

That said, it does not matter what someone could do, it matters what they did do and this is what people wish to discuss.

JustErin said:

3rdeyedude said:

There have been plenty of cases where the media here in the U.S. has used "unarmed teen" for no other reason than to boost their ratings by getting you to watch and/or listen to their report. It is shock value and nothing else. I thought it was a bit ironic to use it as a thread title. It has almost 1000 views so I guess it worked. Also, I mentioned Baltimore because the school is right near the center of the Freddy Gray arrest that got so much attention. I believe "unarmed teen" was also used in that case (even though he had a knife). Whether you like it or not, some of these so called "unarmed teens" could probably fuck you up with their bare hands. I am not speaking about all cases either. Just a select few that have gotten national attention.

That is nothing more than your opinion. They are simply stating a fact - that a teen was not carrying a weapon. Your interpretation on their motivation in stating a fact is irrelevant. This is not a new way of reporting, they always state the facts. You really think that a headline that says, "Cop shoots teen" will invoke less of a response? Do you want it to? Should they also omit that the person shot was a teen? Would that invoke even less of a response? Do you want it to?

Going by the responses I constantly see on here it appears that the real problem you and the OP are having in reporting these facts is that it can (and often does) then open a door to a discussion on something that somehow upsets you...but that will continue to happen whether YOU like it or not.

This thread has nothing to do with letting us all know that a teenager could "fuck you up" with their bare hands, because no one has ever stated anything contrary to this. Why do you and the OP keep stating this? You think you're schooling me on who can still be a threat without a weapon? GTFO with that shit.

I will say it again, 3 more times, since it's been said over and over and over on here but you and the OP keep ignoring it.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

That said, it does not matter what someone could do, it matters what they did do and this is what people wish to discuss.

such an eloquent reply. some really make the following true >>>>>> "there is a >>>

i do agree->No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

free2bfreeda said:

JustErin said:

That is nothing more than your opinion. They are simply stating a fact - that a teen was not carrying a weapon. Your interpretation on their motivation in stating a fact is irrelevant. This is not a new way of reporting, they always state the facts. You really think that a headline that says, "Cop shoots teen" will invoke less of a response? Do you want it to? Should they also omit that the person shot was a teen? Would that invoke even less of a response? Do you want it to?

Going by the responses I constantly see on here it appears that the real problem you and the OP are having in reporting these facts is that it can (and often does) then open a door to a discussion on something that somehow upsets you...but that will continue to happen whether YOU like it or not.

This thread has nothing to do with letting us all know that a teenager could "fuck you up" with their bare hands, because no one has ever stated anything contrary to this. Why do you and the OP keep stating this? You think you're schooling me on who can still be a threat without a weapon? GTFO with that shit.

I will say it again, 3 more times, since it's been said over and over and over on here but you and the OP keep ignoring it.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

That said, it does not matter what someone could do, it matters what they did do and this is what people wish to discuss.

such an eloquent reply. some really make the following true >>>>>> "there is a >>>

i do agree->No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

so we all agree that saying "unarmed teen" means nothing and adds nothing to the narrative.