Two douchebags named Marcos A. Zurinaga and Jared M. Villery were recently convicted of a home invasion robbery that took place in 2002. By all accounts, it was a particularly brutal and terrifying ordeal for the victims:
The pair allegedly used samurai sword and a pistol equipped with a silencer to hold the students prisoner while robbing them of cash, mp3 players, videogames and other items.
The evidence against these two shitcocks was overwhelming, but the Los Angeles prosecutor wasn’t content to simply present the facts of his case to the jury. Realizing that facts are for losers and the race card is so 1995, he played “the 9/11” card.
According to Wired’s 27B Stroke 6:
The 9/11 evidence entered the case after Zurinaga’s lawyer argued that victims’ story was implausible, because the two defendants couldn’t have controlled that many hostages without someone making a break for it. [Wil: Because the first thought anyone has when being held a gun and samurai sword-point is, “hey, I should make a break for it!”]
The prosecution countered that dubious claim by comparing the crime to the 9/11 hijackings, where none of the airline passengers and crew tried to escape the aircraft (hmmm.) “One person took over the cockpit. Four men stayed behind keeping 81, 56, 58 passengers hostage,” he said. “What weapon did these men use? Box cutters. . . . Four men versus 81, 56, 58. That’s what happened.”
The defendants appealed, and in spite of the idiot prosecutor’s egregiously inappropriate comments at trial, their conviction was upheld, because the evidence was so overwhelming and undeniably clear. 27B concludes, “the jury was evidently not swayed by the 9/11 rhetoric. ‘As defense counsel noted, some of the jurors actually appeared to be offended by the prosecutor’s reference to 9/11.'”