George Zimmerman's Defense Team: Just What This Guy Deserves
George Zimmerman's Defense Team: Just What This Guy Deserves
Man, George Zimmerman can’t catch a break. Remember that guy -- the one who shot a kid for walking around his neighborhood with the wrong kind of Skittles, or something. Well, he apparently retained the World’s Worstest Lawyer. The whole plan of defense is that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor, and Mr. Zimmerman was only acting in self-defense. And golly gee willikers, the defense finally found that smoking gun they’ve been looking for :
Lawyer Mark O’Mara said during a hearing last Tuesday that the defense had obtained video footage of three fights, including one in which he said two of Martin’s friends "were beating up a homeless guy.
Whoa, that sure does sound like it could be damning. Surely videographic evidence of Martin & Co beating up defenseless homeless men shows that Martin had a tendency for violence. I sure hope that this video was not wildly mischaracterized and showed something much more mundane, because that sure would be embarrassing for college graduate and law school graduate, lawyer Mark O’Mara, Esq.
According to NBC News :
Attorneys for George Zimmerman apologized Sunday for mischaracterizing evidence they said boosted their theory that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor in his fatal meeting with their client last year.
It’s ok, Mark O’Mara, Esq. Maybe the videotape was all grainy, and you know how sometimes all… youths… look the same. We are sure it is a mistake that anyone could have made, no biggie. But hold on... what, exactly, was on this video that was about to be so critical to your defense?
In a statement posted on Zimmerman’s website, the defense lawyers said the footage actually showed "two homeless guys fighting each other over a bike.
Seriously, O’Mara? Your crack defense team couldn’t differentiate between two kids beating up a homeless man and a webisode of Bumfights?!? Are you even trying here? The judge already said you can’t talk about Martin’s suspension from school, prior weed-smoking, previous text messages, or past fighting in your opening statement. Basically, you have to hope that the jury is as ALLEGEDLY racist as your defendant, or else hope that an offer to Taste the Rainbow is an actual threat to be met with FreedomLeadTM.
In any case, you are seriously bad at your job. No matter how this case turns out, you will likely be looking for a new job. May we humbly suggest running for Congress, where you might sadly be an improvement over several legislative shitmuffins already there.
[ NBC News ]
In this case, "black", "teen", and "hoodie" are the true parts. Which seems to be more than enough to get their message across.
A couple of weeks ago, during the last big "reveal / walkback", a commenter* pointed out that what they're doing is trying to pre-influence potential jurors to believe Trayvon was "dangerous" or "hostile", using assertions that they would never be allowed to present in court.
I believe there have been some experiments done that indicate that, perhaps because of confirmation bias, when people are told something dramatic, and then subsequently told that, oops, no, it wasn't true, that there is still a residual tendency to believe, a little bit, the original dramatic claim.
See, also, the recent outbreak of ghazis.
*It may have been you.