Fox pundit: large men shouldn't be described as "unarmed" even if they are unarmed




Own the narrative...


She didn't actually say the word black out loud.


Dog whistles should be described as whistles, even if you can't hear Dixie.


Or you know, he could've been armed with a bag of Skittles.


Well, according to the experts at urbandictionary muscular arms can be referred to as 'guns'. Case closed, no?


Pretty sure there is a right to bare arms. First Lady says so.


Put the biceps down and step away from it slowly!

Drop the triceps or I'll shoot!

Do you have a permit for those deltoids?


I am sure if she did, she'd have said "blah", not "black"...


I feel like an idiot for being suckered by another beschizza click-bait story .... Listened to the interview and she never says that unarmed men shouldn't be considered unarmed or anything smilar.

Ok so its a bad interview (officer's clean record is important but no mention pf Brown's not having a record etc) bit the BoingBoing headline is so misleading.


Man, when I feel like an idiot I go out of my way to -not- find the bystanders in my own misadventure to point fingers at. That would be terribly irresponsible of me to make out like i was a victim of my own choices.

Takes all kinds to fill a freeway, though


You know I bet cops do treat big guys differently than other folk. Regardless of race. They are able to cause more damage if they decide too. Like how you are probably more wary of a pitbull vs a poodle.


or more wary of a cop than of a big guy


I personally shit myself in the presence of large cops.


I've seen pictures and video... Mike Brown did in fact have TWO ARMS!!! He was not "UNARMED" like the libruhls keep saying


so, in keeping with the Fox theme... you drop a Doocy.


Then I guess it wouldn't violate a large man's second amendment rights if he could not own guns.


Does she actually say if you are certain size then you should be considered armed regardless of whether or not you are carrying a firearm?

OTOH, it is odd to see the term "unarmed" constantly being used as if it is a synonym for "harmless." Roughly 6 percent of homicides each year in the United States are committed by individuals who are "unarmed" and do not use a weapon other than their fists, feet, etc.

The killer in this case, for example, was unarmed.


Even if a person's size could be construed as a weapon, that doesn't justify lethal force. What happened to tasers? What happened to pepper spray, batons, beanbag rounds, etc.? Why go immediately for the kill?

Not that I'm advocating any of those. To me, Brown's death is pretty clearly on the spectrum between manslaughter and murder. But generally speaking, it seems like less-than-lethal-but-still-violent methods are fading away.

In Durham a man was recently killed by police in an obvious suicide-by-cop situation. They were blocks from the police station and the standoff lasted more than an hour before one of the police killed him. It would have been a perfect occasion for a bean bag round. And a bean bag round would have reduced the danger posed by gunfire in downtown Durham.


I bet she only had the courage to say that because she was armed with the chair she was sitting on.