It's very necessary for anyone (who by default) supports law enforcement, and with who'm this article should be trying to engage with. It brings into question the legitimacy of this interaction to begin with, by qualifying the victim wasn't involved in a crime like threatening someone with their gun. They merely possessed a weapon, as millions of potential readers with boot breath do regularly, and responsibly. To me, these are the people that need to see the light the most regarding police violence.
If you don't believe in/support 2A, the word "merely" is probably meaningless. To some people, even the mere accusation of possession is enough of a green light for them to excuse police showing up, and immediately assaulting the victim. These same people also tend to view the problem of police violence as a racially driven problem, as opposed to what it actually is in reality. Perhaps a racial narrative to this would be more emotionally engaging, like "being black while" instead of the word "merely" possessing a gun would seem more fitting.
My entire point is even though it's morally wrong IMO, the majority of people (left & right) don't have a problem with cops beating the shit out of criminals. They do have a problem when the cops beat the shit out of someone they can identify with, even if the person they identify with has committed a crime, but especially when that person hasn't committed a crime. So by emphasizing it to someone who "merely" possesses a gun themselves, it may help them transcend primitive default bootlicker emotions, and actually think about this situation using some logic.
I've found when trying to convince other's in the proverbial "all cops are bastards" narrative, you want to point out the logical inconsistencies like this, that bootlickers tend to harbor. There's no need to convince another BLM sympathizer that police violence should be reigned in. The only way to change public opinion meaningfully on this subject, is pointing out the logical inconsistency of allowing non-defensive assault by government agents. Again, maybe won't garner as many clicks, and engagements, but in my opinion logic is always a superior position.
Police, much like 90% of the general public act on their emotions. Therefore they reserve assault, and murder for victims that pose a threat to their authority which includes innocent. Cops don't systemically assault, or shoot thieves, rapist, or child molesters. They will however shoot you for trying to pull your pants up, when you're ordered to crawl over to them with your hands up somehow. By exposing these flaws in bootlicker logic, the bootlicker is forced into either admitting the police were wrong here, or they're forced into performing the outwardly embarrassing mental gymnastics required to excuse police violence on people that possess weapons.
Bottom line, only the most devoted bootlicker will want to suck a cops dick so bad, they're willing to be beaten for merely possessing something seen as legally protected. Go ahead, ask your average bootlicker what should happen to anyone possessing a weapon legally. To them this inconsistency is might be an inflection point. Save the emotion for actually seeing an innocent person being beaten, or murdered for either intentionally, or unintentionally failing to complying with police, or merely possessing a weapon. Bottom line is the emotionally engaging narrative you find more palatable, and less cringeworthy is actually counterproductive to the movement, and why it's failed so miserably. Emotions are better suited for convincing the semi illiterate on the right & left to continue operating on autopilot, they're not for appealing to thinking people who value logic and are able to transcend stupid, but much more engaging trappings of politics.
