The two cases are not symmetric. The parents' case is more understandable than the cold, calculating, abusive case of the politician.
I disagree. Khan did not step up there to talk about his son, who was referenced by the father in two sentences, one of which praised Hillary Clinton. He used his son as a prop, spending almost all of his short speech condemning Trump, while forgetting to mention the deaths directly on Clinton. Here is his diatribe:
If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America. Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities; women; judges; even his own party leadership.
He vows to build walls, and ban us from this country. Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future.
It was pure politics and only the hatred of Trump by former Republicans and conservatives would deny it. There's a lot of things I dislike about Trump including part of his response to this attack on him, but at least I see the father's political motives for what they were. Trump had nothing to do with his son's death. His son was a political pawn. Did Khan express any concern over the deaths of Muslim soldiers during the time Clinton was working for Obama...the Commander in Chief?
If we weren't talking about Trump, everyone on this forum would have agreed this father was using his son's death for nothing but politics. But with the anti-Trump group, it's any port in a storm.