There are those that make great effort to point out how someone was “unarmed” when they were shot/killed.
This is typically done in an attempt to make a case of wrongful force disparity. That is, if A has a gun and B has only hands, then A is automatically at the advantage, B automatically at the disadvantage, and thus it’s wrong for A to use the gun to stop B because B was “unarmed”.
This isn’t dueling.
There aren’t any gentlemanly rules.
This isn’t sport where we strive to contrive an environment of “equal footing” and a “level playing field”.
This also isn’t necessarily murder or some other accusation you wish to cast upon A merely because A had a gun and B didn’t (blanket statement; each particular case should be examined on its own circumstances, data, and merit).
What this is is a failure to understand what sort of damage an “unarmed” person can do.
Tim has written a good article explaining the sort of damage an unarmed person can do. It has pictures and video to demonstrate.
Being “armed” or “unarmed” does not correlate to the level of danger one can pose to others. There are folks that are armed and not dangerous, and there are those that are unarmed and quite dangerous. We should not assume that having a gun means one is dangerous and not having a gun means one is harmless. Issues of use of force, force disparity, and self-defense are more complex than media hysterics and ignorant Facebook posts make it out to be.