Okay, I am briefly going to touch on the Trayvon Martin case. But not like you really think anyway. During the initial media frenzy of the Zimmerman debacle the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton all basically came out together and said that the Stand Your Ground law was nothing more than a license to kill black men. There it is. They said it, not me. Let’s go ahead and fast forward to the next big case you’ve never heard of to use the Stand Your Ground law.
Marrissa Alexander and her husband, who I can only assume is estranged at this point, were having a domestic tiff. Now, her husband has been picked up at least twice before for domestic abuse or violence. That has to be factored into the equation here She apparently went and got the gun and fired a warning shot at him. During her trial she served up the stand your ground defense as she had a reasonable fear for her life. The NAACP has backed her play saying, why yes she did have a reasonable fear. But wait, it gets better. This is being prosecuted by the same State attorney handling the Martin prosecution and the NAACP has the balls to stand there and cry racism in the persecution of the case because it was a black woman. If it were anyone else they say, nothing would have happened, and she had a right to stand her ground.
So what is it then NAACP? Does someone have a right to stand their ground as the law suggests or is it only reserved for minorities? If a black person stands ground against white is it somehow better than the reverse case? Does it apply to all or only some as you have clearly demonstrated you believe? Here’s the thing though, they’re not giving you the whole truth on the case. Yes she shot a warning shot at her husband…pointing the gun in the direction of two children standing in a doorway. Hmmm, did they also mention that Mrs. Alexander also has a domestic violence conviction. Oops, in Florida that means you can’t have a gun, pretty much in most states a domestic violence conviction keeps you from having a gun.
Now there might be a perceived lack of good judgement when handing out a 20 year sentence for that and I do agree that sentencing laws are way to stiff and might, in some cases, be considered cruel and unusual. I mean, Florida law calls for a min 20 for aggravated assault with a firearm, but really even if you fire it in the air? Maybe the prosecution should have offered a plea….Oh wait, they did, offered her three years in prison, but she chose trial, knowing a guilty sentence carried a 20 year minimum. But she needed to prove she stood her ground against an evil man who hurt her and regardless of actual facts, she should get the free pass. Because….well I don’t really know what she was thinking.