I do not see any threat. ~ FWIW
The Secret Service can’t afford to have a sense of humor. but that’s OK because Richard Ramirez also lacks one. Possibly the dullest political cartoonist, if you can call him that, going.
He shows about as much originality as a shot put.
Since none of the posts here mention it, I assume this is a more recent development, but following the link in the OP:
So apparently some do not think the Secret Service acted reasonably in this case. I agree the cartoon was in bad taste and maybe the editor should not have run it. But clearly the cartoon was meant to be symbolic and is not a credible threat. Helms statement, on the other hand, seems to warrant a visit IMO. Much closer to a direct threat.
Whether you think the cartoon is in bad taste or not, it seems to be in deference to this famous photograph , which shows the execution of a Viet Cong officer in 1968.
Isn’t the cartoon pro- Bush? Or am I missing something?
This has nothing to do with the OP, but is there some level to this cartoon that I’m not getting? Specifically, is there some reason to reference that particular photograph, instead of just depicting a generic assassination?
Ah me. I obviously meant Michael and not Richard.
The cartoon is pro-Bush, from a pro-Bush pro-Republican cartoonist.
That’s what makes the whole situation humorously ironic, IMO. It’s like a Bush supporter going to a Bush pep rally, jumping into the air and yelling “YAY GEORGE!”, then getting dogpiled by a dozen Secret Service agents because they thought he was trying to leap the stage and attack the President.