Why play the race card when you can play the 9/11 card?

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.'”

4 thoughts on “Why play the race card when you can play the 9/11 card?”

  1. During a time when mislabeling mp3 files (and p2p in general) is classified as terrorism, this kind of unfortunate rhetoric in relation to a violent crime isn’t surprising.

  2. Pretty sickening, but you ought to read the civil trial transcripts when its all about money and a lower threshold needed to win…what both camps come up with to sway a jury is maddening, just as offensive and horrors…half baked.

  3. God, the whole legal system needs a rewrite. Too many cases are decided by idiot logic and coached testimony. Of course, this is the reason why, as a scientist and an engineer, I never get picked for jury duty.

  4. OK, maybe I’m out-of-line here, but that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    The defense brought up the claim that a small number of attackers couldn’t control a larger number of hostages/victims.

    The prosecution responded to this with a well known example of a small group of people who kept a much larger group under control.

    In what sense is that “playing the 9/11 card” ? Unless there’s more to the story, he’s not calling them terrorists or anything, just rebutting a very specific claim by the defense.

Comments are closed.