At least one person was killed and four others wounded in a shooting at a homeless encampment in Las Vegas on Friday, police said.
The incident occurred in the area of Charleston Boulevard and U.S. 95 around 5:30 p.m. local time. Officers responded to a homeless encampment, where witnesses directed them to multiple victims, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Lt. Jason Johansson said at a press briefing Friday night.
Exactly which accusation do you wish me to withhold? The fact that someone is disgusting for killing the un homed?
It’s possible the shooter was in the same situation themselves. So, it’s unreasonable to think that people are going to get along on the basis of shared misfortune.
So to you it’s not disgusting if a homeless person shoots a homeless person?
Not in the same way as someone of means intentionally targeting homeless people, no. The difference is the apparent motive.
You don’t see the difference between a targeted attack on a demographic versus violence between two individuals of the same socioeconomic standing? Really?
I think the gun violence either way is beyond disgusting. This was an avoidable attack that people in the comments are trying to justify based on the victim and / or attackers social economic position.
I don’t think anyone is trying to justify it, simply frame it in proportion to what it was.
It could have been a homeless person that shot them. Waiting until the facts are known is always better than assuming you already know without needing them.
So to you it’s not disgusting if a homeless person shoots a homeless person?
Sure it is. It’s disgusting that anyone shoots anyone. But when you start making assumptions that it was someone from outside preying on them- yore creating a false narrative for the purpose of agitating the us vs them crowd which is disingenuous.
Just wait and see what the investigation produces.
The only person who made that assumption was you. No one mentioned whether the shooter was homeless or not.
OP assumed it wasn’t. I made no assumptions. Learn how to read.
He’s talking about the victims there genius. There’s no assumption there about the shooter.
That is not how to interpret that statement. That reduces the point to a tautological statement of no consequence.
No, that’s what they said. Stop adding your own assumptions
Of course they were. Thats not the point.
This would be a dumb thing to say if an assumption wasn’t that the person wasn’t also homeless. OP assumed the shooter wasn’t also homeless.
Read it again with the idea that the shooter was a homeless man and it reads entirely wrong.
For fuck’s sake man.
Yeah, no. It really doesn’t
If a homeless person attacks a homeless person, they are still attacking someone society has failed. My interpretation of the comment is that it is more related to the victim than the perpetrator, like shooting elderly people in a nursing home or children or otherwise less privileged people - you’re victimizing someone who doesn’t have the same opportunity to protect or defend themselves or even choose where they reside. This is not to say that they are pitiable or anything like that, but they are disenfranchised.
Exactly.
You’re the one who needs to learn to read.
If you said so.
The correct phrase is “if you say so.”
I also came to that conclusion