In order to determine if it's "being applied disparately", we would need to compare this incident to others with similar circumstances.
Yet when nevergaveitathought tried to compare it with the killing of Ashli Babbitt, you rejected this as whataboutism.
So how in the fuck do you conclude something is "being applied disparately" - when you provide no data on comparable cases, and reject any attempt to bring one up?
Originally Posted by lustylad
when he more than broadly hints the decision was due to race
that can only be due to his "knowledge" of similar cases being decided differently when the race of the actor is different, which is a whataboutism,
and when he uses the phrase that is dragged out when there is nothing but perhaps statistical differences as among citizens in the enforcement of some law, often without real acknowledgement that we are individuals and are responsible for our individual actions, which phrase is "being applied disparately", he is in effect doing a whataboutism
when all is a comparison to another
but then he claims he isn't mr. whataboutism