Discussion for article #226277
Whether this is an issue depends upon how the Martin family feels about the usage of this photo. The fact that Arizona candidates are accusing each other of intentions based on their gun-rights policies and votes isn’t surprising.
I am a liberal and would support allsorts of gun-related regulation.
However, use of this image is just wrong.
1 Like
I agree, very poor taste using ANY victim of gun violence or images of rape victims, or images of car crash victims, or even images of investment fraud victims in political advertisements is well below civility and respect for victims, EVEN IF, the victim gave permission for their use, (which, of course,in the case of Trayvon Martin, could never happen).
1 Like
The more I think about it, the more I agree with you and Chicago11 - they should have made their ads without using that photo.
Stand your ground in my opinion is a bad law but using this picture just isn’t right in this case. If george zimmerman was running for office or maybe some of his attorney’s were running for office for example then this would be appropriate.
2 Likes
Unless one is a candidate for judge in the district where the crime happened, (some backwater place in Florida), then using images of crimes committed, OR of criminals charged, OR of defense attorneys, NO, it does not pass the smell test.
Sensationalizing crimes, criminals, or miscarriages of justice from another area of the country, not just the next county or town, this is irrational emotionalism, not respectable campaign tactics. If a judge dismisses a case and stands for re-election, then and ONLY then is it appropriate to bring up such miscarriages of justice which happened on his watch. Attacking victims, defendants, defense attorneys, in elections that have nothing whatsoever to do with the case in question, not a proper, nor a respectable campaign tactic, EVER!
1 Like
I couldn’t disagree more. Martin, who was unarmed, was shot and killed by a man who claimed he acted properly under Florida’s stand-your-ground law.The case could not have gotten more public attention. Now a candidate in another state is making an issue of another candidate’s support of a similar law. The Martin case and Trayvon’s image give the issue poignancy. Should public issues - and elections - be robbed of such poignancy out of some vague concept of “respect?”
Statehouse races are relevant to people’s everyday lives in ways they don’t understand. This sort of ad addresses that. Elections are sacred and voters need to be engaged.
1 Like
Good for Mary Rose Wilcox! It’s about time that the progressive left began to use the starkest terms to describe what is at stake here: the lives of innocent minority youths!
Don’t back off, Mary Rose! I just sent you a contribution!
http://www.maryrosewilcox.com/
Good luck!!
You fail to recognize that elections are NOT about jury verdicts. Try to get the basics of American three part governance down before you think each and every verdict in every trial has to do with an election somewhere 2000 miles apart. Disagree all you want, but America and our Democratic Republic is NOT about what your particular feelings are about one particular trial. The Trayvon Martin killing was a travesty, and the trial and acquittal was another travesty of justice, but it has nothing at all to do with Arizona and how they should choose who they elect to office. Try to get your brain tuned into the logic channel instead of the emotional channel.
If you want to STAY on that emotional channel, how would you feel if YOUR son had been gunned down and someone 2000 miles away used the image of your dead son just to score political points and votes?
I support this.
The candidate in question voted for stand your ground laws AFTER Trayvon Marton was killed, he knew what it meant.
Before politicians have any chance at pushing back at the 2nd amendment absolutist ammosexuals, there must be consequences for politicians who cynically decide to toe the NRA’s looney political agenda.
The place for this to start is in the Democratic Party.