Rather than re-typing, I’ll direct your attention to Dr. Sikivu Hutchinson, who wrote about Ms. Alexander’s unjust treatment here; in short, she fired a warning shot to stop her husband attacking her, and ended up in prison for 20 years for aggravated assault.
You know, the place where it was okay for Zimmerman to murder a young Black man, because Zimmerman was so scared that had to leap out of his
police car – oh, wait, no, not a cop, huh? – vehicle to pursue and kill him with a firearm?
Where there are nominally “stand your ground” laws, allowing (privileged) people to defend themselves without requiring retreat, as is commonly the law in most places.
In the comments, she also updates that Ms. Alexander (link is to the support site for her fight against her conviction) has been granted a retrial by an appeals court, so at least she will theoretically get a chance to make her case, and hopefully with some attention we can focus on the trial, get a more just result than a mandatory minimum 20 years, for an “aggravated” assault that didn’t make so much as a bruise on the person she didn’t shoot.
20 years. Anyone doubting that it’s because she’s got the complexion to break the connection, between self-defence (for those deemed white enough) and aggravated assault (for anyone foolish enough to have brown skin)?
See, mandatory minima sound like a justice leveler. You’re meant to think, “Well, anyone else who did that would get the same mandatory minimum, right?”
But of course, that doesn’t reckon with Privilege™ (don’t leave – or enter – your house without it!).
When you’ve got Privilege™, then they look at your case and decide it was “unlawful discharge of a firearm”. Usually not a major felony, and thus able to avoid both three-strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentences.
There are lots of ways for the system to be gamed in favour of people with Privilege™.
Speak up for Marissa Alexander.