She fired in anger, but didn’t even hit her abusive husband. It was a stupid thing done in anger. But nobody was hurt and she apparently only meant to frighten him.
But then again, she Fired While Black and, most importantly, unwealthy. So 20 years.
Update: I was wrong. Zimmerman did not invoke Stand Your Ground but self defense (not that it matters much with respect to this story). Also, the woman’s Stand Your Ground defense is vitiated by the fact that she went outside to get the gun and returned to fire it.
That said, despite what people may be assuming, you will note that I have not commented on the Zimmerman verdict–and for a very good reason: I wasn’t there. Nor is *this* blog entry about Zimmerman except insofar as it is a story about a person who felt threatened and fired a gun (only without causing any injury), rather *like* Zimmerman. This note was not about the injustice/justice of the Zimmerman verdict. Nor is this note a claim that the woman was innocent. This note was about the ridiculous injustice just meted out to this woman. Her crime simply does not deserve 20 years of prison. If you *think* you hear me “really” commenting on Zimmerman and not on her, your ears are playing tricks on you.
But you weren’t there for her crime either!
True. I’m just here for her sentencing and 20 years is a gross injustice no matter how you slice it for firing a shot meant to frighten. But then we live in a country where you can steal $3 billion dollars and get 3 years (if you are the Right Sort) but if you are a homeless black guy who takes $100 because you are hungry, then feels remorse and returns it, you get 15 years. It’s just wrong. Her *main* crime was not being able to afford the sort of lawyer Claudine Longet (or, I might add, OJ Simpson) could afford. If she had been able to she needn’t have fired a warning shot. She could have gone ahead and committed cold-blooded murder and walked.