My father said if I looked carefully at every person who
came into my life, I would discover something good about each of them and I
would uncover the reason they had come into my life. Sometimes, he warned, the
only reason they would be there would be to show me what I didn’t want to be. I
took his words to heart and made a game of it.
A month into the active part of the game with Mark O’Mara, I’ve
identified his purpose in my life but am not finding a single moral fiber,
example, action, or even physical characteristic that warrants the label good. I believe his purpose is to be the
face of all that is wrong with our legal system.
Mr. O’Mara volunteered to take this case, knowing that his
client murdered an innocent child and blamed his victim, and that the client’s
first attorneys quit because he was uncooperative. This was not a case of O’Mara
being a public defender and it was his turn, or even of being called to take
the case. He volunteered, which makes me believe he enjoys helping murderers
get away with their crimes or he wanted publicity. Neither makes him a good guy
in my eyes. In the end, it’s also easy for me to believe he knew it would be a
profitable endeavor, also. Add disgusting to the not good things I already
think of him. There is nothing more disgusting than wanting to profit from the
murder of an innocent child.
Mr. O’Mara made it perfectly clear that he prides himself on
being devious, dishonest, and disgustingly cruel as he badgered witnesses.
Public conversation indicates there are many in our society who believe
murderers are entitled to have devious liars as defense attorneys. I’m not one
of them. Why are witnesses required to swear to tell the truth while defense attorneys
badger them with lies and attempt to deceptively coerce them into accidentally
using a word that can be twisted and used against them later? The defense in
the Zimmerman case did this repeatedly and shamefully with Rachel Jeantel. I
hope this is another conversation we will take up as a result of this trial
since it makes people not want to come forward and serve as witnesses.
Now, there is evidence of jury tampering. Only the murderer
can appeal? Double jeopardy laws protect them from society appealing on behalf
of the victim? Another conversation I’d like to have.
Mr. O’Mara claims his client will never be safe because
there are a percentage of the population who are angry and may take their anger
out on him. The truth is, Mr. O’Mara’s client will never be safe because of
choices that he and his client made. The client chose to stalk and murder an
innocent child based on prejudice and Mr. O’Mara chose to make a mockery of our
system so he could walk free.
Mr. O’Mara compounds the ugliness and inflames the anger many
of us feel by asking us to sympathize with his client, who did plenty wrong and
showed no remorse for any of it, while ignoring the fact that his victim, Trayvon
Martin, was not safe simply because O’Mara’s client acted on flawed prejudgment
of the victim. By ignoring the reality of the millions of others who are more
unsafe because he helped a prejudiced killer get away with murder, Mr. O’Mara
becomes the fool he obviously hopes we are when he whines about his client
feeling unsafe now. (I say the self-defense classes and paranoid belief that he
needed to carry a gun to Target shows his client felt unsafe before any of this
happened. We should wonder what this man has done to make so many enemies.)
If Mr. O’Mara’s client had taken the stand in his own
defense, told his story, and begged for mercy and forgiveness, I might have
been able to find one good thing to say about both of them. But that didn’t
happen.
Turns out Mr. O’Mara came into my life for two reasons: he
will remain the face of everything wrong with our legal system in my mind, as
well as a reminder of what I don’t want to be.
Get Involved:
