Political Cartoons for the Trayvon Martin Shooting and Florida's "Shoot First" Bill

With the outrage felt by the nation at the shooting of Trayvon Martin, and the potential that the shooter could get away with it because of Florida's "shoot first, ask questions later" law, political cartoonists have been busy trying to capture the issue.  Here are many of the political cartoons I have seen for this issue:

UPDATE (4/7/12):

UPDATE (4/9/12):  

UPDATE (4/12/12):

UPDATE (4/15/12):

UPDATE (4/17/12):  

UPDATE (4/23/12):

UPDATE (4/24/12):

UPDATE (4/25/12):

UPDATE (5/1/12):

 

UPDATE (5/10/12):

UPDATE 7/14/12:

It's Just A "Hooded Sweatshirt," Right?

Trayvon Martin, age 17

The shooting of Trayvon Martin continues to polarize the nation.  Some critical questions about the case have yet to be answered.  Even though the shooter, George Zimmerman, feeling empowered by Florida's "shoot first" law, clearly stalked and chased the boy around the housing complex before shooting him to death, Zimmerman claims the boy was the attacker.  If the boy did throw the first blow, would the boy's attack have been justified, given he knew he was being followed and might have suspected that Zimmerman was armed?  We may never know the true story of who threw the first punch, since it is the shooter's word against that of a dead boy.  But even conceal carry gun owners are agreeing that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense won't justify the shooting.

"I'm a Florida deputy in a neighboring county. Zimmerman is guilty of 1^st-degree manslaughter at a minimum. I personally feel like this was an outright homicide!" wrote vkent718. "I feel for Trayvon's family."

And how much of Zimmerman's actions were motivated by racism?  Twice in the 911 call, Zimmerman describes the boy as black.  He then calls the boy a "fucking coon" under his breath.  When asked by the 911 operator, Zimmerman describes how the boy wore a hoodie.  
 

In case you've been living in the dark ages of fashion, a "hoodie" is a sweatshirt with a hood, harkening back to the 70's, like when Sylvester Stallone wore one in "Rocky."

It is an article of clothing worn by young people of every race all over our nation.  I own one, too.  To some people, it has become a symbol of hip-hop, urban style.  But for other people, the racist ones, it is a symbol of gangs and violence committed by black youths.  It's not acceptable to publicly accuse a black young man as a criminal simply due to the color of his skin, but somehow people can get away with using an article of clothing for the same purpose.  The hoodie becomes a stand-in for the skin color.  If a white boy were wearing the same garment, I doubt anyone would say anything.

Was Zimmerman one of those people?  Given his racist slur, I hazard to guess that he is. 

Listen as Geraldo Rivera apologizes for those people:  HERE.

“I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was,” Rivera explained.

“What’s the instant association? It’s crime scene surveillance tapes. Every time you see someone stick up a 7-11, the kid is wearing a hoodie. Every time you see a mugging on a surveillance camera or get the old lady in the alcove, it’s kid with a hoodie,” Rivera continued.

“When you see a Black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street. You try to avoid that confrontation,” he said. “Trayvon Martin, god bless him, an innocent kid, a wonderful kid, a box of Skittles in his hands. He didn’t deserve to die. But I bet you money, if he didn’t have that hoodie on that, nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way.”

“Stop wearing it! You know the old Johnny Cash song, don’t take your gun to town, son. Leave your gun at home,” Rivera said. “There is some things that are almost inevitable. I’m not suggesting that Trayvon Martin had any kind of weapon, but he wore an outfit that allowed someone to respond in this irrational, overzealous way and if he had been dressed more appropriately… I think unless it’s raining out, or if you’re at a track meet, leave the hoodie home, don’t let your children go out there.”

Apparently Rivera is afraid to walk past black or latino kids on the street, particularly if they are wearing a hoodie.  Does that make him racist?  Yes.  Yes it does. 

In light of Rivera's comments and Zimmerman's apparent stereotyping, people all over the nation are wearing hoodies as a symbol of the injustice of the shooting and the apparent racism that contributed to it.  A "Million Hoodie March" is being held across the nation.  HERE is one that is planned for Portland, Oregon.  Yesterday a Democratic Representative, Bobby Rush of Illinois, wore one in the nation's capitol and was escorted out as a result.

At this point in his remarks, Rush took off his jacket to reveal that he was wearing a hoodie underneath it. He covered his head with the hood, violating a rule in Congress that prohibits wearing hats on the House floor.

"Racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum," Rush added, swapping his spectacles for a pair of sunglasses.

Gail Collins, an op-ed writer for the New York Times, had some good comments on this:

Congress, which never draws any serious conclusions from terrible tragedies involving gunplay, did have time on Wednesday to fight about whether Representative Bobby Rush of Chicago violated the House dress code when he took off his suit jacket, revealing a gray sweater he was wearing underneath, and pulled the hood up over his head. 

“Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum,” Congressman Rush said, before he was hustled off for violating the rule against wearing hats on the House floor. 

This is pretty much par for the course. Whenever there is a terrible shooting incident somewhere in America, our politicians talk about everything except whether the tragedy could have been avoided if the gunman had not been allowed to carry a firearm.

And what does the NRA have to say about the shooting?  Nothing.  Zilch.  Nada.  As usual, in the wake of an horrific shooting that grabs the nation's attention and highlights the dangers of lax gun regulation, the NRA has nothing to say.  They don't mourn the death of another child.  They don't condemn the shooter for stalking the boy or killing him.  They don't even examine the facts of the case.  Little wonder.  It was the NRA and their lobbyist, Marion Hammer, who crafted the "stand your ground" (a.k.a. "shoot first, ask questions later") bill that empowered Zimmerman and may let him get away with the shooting.  Since that bill was passed, "justifiable homicide" cases in Florida have tripled in number.

The NRA's new Concealed Carry Hooded Sweater

The NRA may be silent on the case, but that isn't stopping them from profiting from it.  They've now added a new item to their online store:  the NRAstore™ exclusive Concealed Carry Hooded Sweatshirt. 

That's right, coincident with the death of a boy who may have been targeted because he was black and wore a hoodie, and shot by a man with a violent history yet had a concealed handgun, the NRA is now releasing a hoodie that is specially-designed to conceal a handgun.  Should we be surprised at this arrogance?  Or is this just another example of how the NRA profits from the deaths of innocents?  From their ad:

Inside the sweatshirt you’ll find left and right concealment pockets. The included Velcro®-backed holster and double mag pouch can be repositioned inside the pockets for optimum draw. Ideal for carrying your favorite compact to mid-size pistol, the NRA Concealed Carry Hooded Sweatshirt gives you an extra tactical edge, because its unstructured, casual design appears incapable of concealing a heavy firearm – but it does so with ease!

I wonder, would George Zimmerman have wanted to wear one of these NRA "Conceal Carry Hooded Sweatshirts" as he stalked the young man he called a "fucking coon" and then shot him to death?




UPDATE (4/11/12):  Zimmerman has finally been taken into custody and will be charged: http://www.wtol.com/story/17386009/zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-death

The Dangers of Vigilante Justice

Not quite an hour south of me here in Oregon, down in the little town of Dorena, people are up in arms – literally – about lack of adequate sheriff’s patrols and the potential that more deputies will be laid off.  Last summer there was a crime spree in the area.  So now Dorena citizens are calling for their own sort of solution:

Minnick and his neighbors are not taking the news sitting down. 

"Talk to your neighbors, get to know your neighbors," he told KVAL News this week. "That's your best defense." 

Minnick said last summer's troubles united residents. They meet once a month to talk over home safety steps, like alarm systems. 

"Since it's been in, I sleep really good now," he said.

So far so good, I thought.  I’m a strong advocate of neighborhood watch programs and good relations with neighbors, for the sake of watching out for each other.

But then the article took a dark turn:

And when the alarm goes off, neighbors get the call - not the Sheriff's Office. 

Dorena residents have all received basic gun safety training.  

"They are the ones that get the call from the alarm system, if it goes off and we're not home," he said, "and they come armed." 

Minnick's message to would be thieves and burglars?  

"We know who you are," he said, "and if you start again, there will be some opposition." 

Excuse me?  Yes, I read it again.  They’re talking about forming posses.  In short, they are preparing for “vigilante justice.”

This is certainly nothing new in the world of conceal carry gun guys.  A common dream of theirs, which they repeat again and again as justification for carrying guns everywhere in public, from Starbucks to grade schools, is that, if they witness a crime (even just a theft), they’ll swoop in and save the day with guns drawn and blazing.  They imagine themselves playing “Wyatt Earp.”

Some gun guys will deny it.  I have no doubt that the majority of those who carry concealed handguns do it for self-protection out of a paranoid fear of their fellow man.  But a disturbing number of them also carry a gun with the notion that they can play the role of a freelance policeman, like those people in Dorena.

I’ve commented on this before, when a group of gun extremists in California hoped to incite a riot by the Occupy movement there and then use their weapons to “protect” their community.

HERE is a case from Minnesota where a man with a concealed gun witnessed a thief pistol-whip an old woman then steal her purse.  Instead of calling 911, he decided to play policeman by pulling his gun and chasing the pursesnatcher.  He confronted the thief in an alleyway and shot him dead, claiming that the thief had turned to shoot him.  At that point, it was his word against a dead man’s as to what had happened.  The old woman was only slightly injured.  Were the contents of the purse worth the thief’s life?  Was the crime worth it for the vigilante to risk his own life confronting the thief? 

HERE is a more recent case from just a few days ago, in Texas, where a customer with a concealed handgun witnessed the theft of a necklace at a pawn shop.  Instead of calling 911, the customer decided to pull his gun and chase down the suspect.  The suspect wasn’t armed, but at one point tried to get into a  car, making the vigilante think he was going for his gun.  The suspect eventually got away, after dropping the necklace.  Was the theft of a necklace from a pawn shop worth the vigilante risking his life for?  Was the thief’s life worth taking for it?

HERE is another recent case, where a man was in bed and heard a commotion from his neighbor, who had just been robbed at gunpoint.  He jumped out of bed, armed with a loaded handgun, and chased down the suspect.  He was thinking, according to the article, “OK, that’s not going to happen. Not on my watch.”  his watch?  Who appointed him as watchman?  The article makes him out as a hero, but he’s lucky he wasn’t shot by the suspect.  The robbery victim was apparently unharmed.  Was what was robbed worth the life of either the “hero” or the suspect?

There are many, many such cases as these.  They’re easy to find.

By now, if you’re even slightly in tune with issues of guns and gun violence, you also have heard a lot about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year old boy who was innocently walking through his gated neighborhood when a self-appointed neighborhood watch man, George Zimmerman, armed with a concealed weapon and feeling empowered by Florida’s “shoot first” law, took it upon himself to trail and then accost Trayvon, against the advice of 911.  When the boy put up a fight, armed with nothing more than a can of tea and a bag of Skittles, Zimmerman shot Trayvon dead.

There are so many red flags with this case that it boggles the mind, such as the fact that Zimmerman had a violent past but was allowed to carry a concealed weapon anyway, the way Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator and felt obliged to get into an armed confrontation with the boy despite the fact that police were on their way, the assumption by the police of Zimmerman’s innocence, the assumption by the police of Trayvon’s guilt, the apparent stereotypes that Zimmerman had of Trayvon based on the boy’s clothing and skin color, and the lack of an arrest of the shooter.

But at least as disturbing to me as any of those things is the root of the issue, the one thing that led to the confrontation in the first place:  the desire by a man with a concealed weapon to play “Wyatt Earp” and be a freelance policeman.  People carry concealed handguns for two main reasons:  fear of others, and a sense of self-empowerment.  Fear of others can quickly become paranoia, and a feeling of self-empowerment can sometimes push people over the edge into irrational behavior in a crisis situation.  Both of these things likely happened in Trayvon’s situation.  Add to this the recent study that people who hold guns are more likely to imagine others being armed with guns.  This, too, apparently happened in Trayvon’s shooting, where Zimmerman is heard on the 911 call saying that he thought Trayvon was holding something suspicious, like a gun.

There is an irrefutable fact:  the average citizen with a conceal carry license is not even remotely trained like a policeman.  They aren’t as versed in the laws, they haven’t been trained in crisis intervention, negotiation tactics, or how to remain rational or steady in a shootout, and they likely haven’t had as much practice with their weapon.  Training requirements are little to none nearly anywhere in America for them, and they are less accountable to anyone for their potentially lethal decisions than law enforcement professionals.  So the pro-gun daydream of saving the day with their guns is a potentially lethal one, not just for the criminal or the gun owner, but also for anyone who happens to be around them when the shootout happens.

I can understand the frustration felt by the citizens of Dorena.  They just want to feel safe.  Sadly, bond measures intended to fund law enforcement in this area almost always fail, and they are particularly voted against by rural voters like those in Dorena.  If they want to improve their safety, arming everyone around and forming posses to come to the rescue of a victim isn’t the answer, as Trayvon’s family can now attest.  The answer is better funding to improve the number of deputy patrols, as well as the many non-armed options to hardening their homes against invaders. 

There are very good reasons why we have police forces instead of relying on vigilantes to protect our communities.  Let’s hope the citizens of Dorena don’t re-discover them.


Addendum (4/26/12):  Another recent case, where a man and his son "exercised their rights" by grabbing their AR-15 assault rifles and holding an interracial couple hostage, thinking they were breaking in next door.  Turns out they were the new neighbors.  So much for their vigilante "justice."  http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/04/24/second-amendment-is-not-an-excuse-for-vigilantes/?cp=14#comment-936862