There's this thing called "Miller's Law." It says "Read things as in a way that makes them true, if you can." People who don't follow Miller's law are not really seeking truth. Here's an example:

1. A black man works a job in which he feels threatened so he gets a ccw permit and a gun. You assume that is because he only door dashes in a crime ridden black neighborhood.

Did I say that, especially the "only" part? I assumed that he is afraid of criminals in his service area, and I assumed that most of those criminals were Black. The rest you made up, in violation of Miller's Law. Then you ask me where I got the info, which I would only need if I made the ridiculous assumption you attributed to me. So we'll skip that.

2. Your second point, which you could have made at the outset, may be important. If Locke was sleeping with his gun because he had no better place to put it, then he was not choosing to "sleep with a gun." That would take us back to why Door-dashing was dangerous for him, but it would make the "had to sleep with a gun" case less clear. Thing is, you were so het up on personalizing your comment that you lost sight of the goal here, which is to figure out why Amir Locke is dead. Instead of saying "He was sleeping with a gun because he had no better place to put it," you went off on racially-loaded tangents.

3. I think you are making my point for me. Precisely because Locke's cousin was a criminal, Locke's possession of a gun was more dangerous for him than mine would be for me. That is unfortunate, tragically so in his case. But his cousin's criminality is not a one-off. His cousin's murder victim also had a significant rap sheet. Call it "criminal-on-criminal" crime if that makes the problem less triggering. Local criminality cannot be dismissed as the underlying cause of Locke's death. The no-knock warrant was certainly the proximate cause of his death, but that does not mean it is the most valuable target for community action.

Suppose I rewrote the essay and replaced "Black on Black" with "local." Would it really make a difference to Benjamin Crump and everyone else who says Locke's death was due to police misconduct?

My OP did not "imply" inherent criminality in Black people. You inferred that from the post, again violating Miller's Law. The OP implies de facto criminality in Locke's neighborhood, not inherent criminality in its residents. I believe most Black activists and their allies refuse to look at local crime as a cause of police shootings because they don't want to admit that the community could be doing more to solve its own problems. As I said in my last reply, my position is not that White people can't help; it's that they won't help, so it is up to the locals to save themselves. Diverting people's attention to no-knock warrants is not going to save nearly as many lives as drawing attention to the criminality in the community.