|
October 28, 2009
Making a hero disappear
"I have to die a man or live a coward."One of the basic principles of justice (and human rights) is the right not to have your house invaded. Call it "a man's home is his castle" or whatever, but the right to resist invasion is both ancient and inherent in human nature. It does not matter whether the invasion is mounted by an individual or by a group; in fact, a group of evil men hell-bent on doing violence is a lot scarier than a lone attacker. In both cases, there is a human right to self defense and to use lethal force. I recently learned that in 2006, Michigan law codified this right by enacting the "man's home is his castle" doctrine, establishing that there is no duty to retreat when one's home is being invaded, and creating a rebuttable presumption that deadly force is justified in self defense: ...it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:While I'm glad Michigan joined the states which have this presumption, I think it's a shame that when the legislators passed the man's-home-is-his-castle bill, they dropped its original name, and I'm fascinated by the reasoning involved. The bill had been titled the "Dr. Ossian Sweet Self Defense Act" in memory of the black physician who valiantly defended his home against a mob of white racists in 1925. After Sen. Alan CROPSEY (R-Dewitt) gave an explanation of the bills, Sen. Buzz THOMAS (D-Detroit) said though he considered quietly voting against the bills but couldn't do it unless references to the "Dr. Ossian SWEET Self Defense Act" were changed.Dr. Sweet and his family were defended by the legendary Clarence Darrow, who considered the Sweet case and the Scopes "Monkey Trial" to be his most important cases. Here's what Darrow said at the time: If I thought any of you had any opinion about the guilt of my clients, I wouldn't worry, because that might be changed. What I'm worried about is prejudice. They are harder to change. They come with your mother's milk and stick like the color of the skin. I know that if these defendants had been a white group defending themselves from a colored mob, they never would have been arrested or tried. My clients are charged with murder, but they are really charged with being black.A long and detailed story with pictures is here. The point is, no human being should ever have to endure the sort of mob violence that Dr. Sweet and his family endured, and I think it's a crying shame that it took the Michigan legislature over 80 years to enact into law the ancient principle that Dr. Sweet had the right to defend his home against a mob. So why couldn't it be named after him? What is wrong with helping to rectify an injustice committed against a black man who tried to defend himself, his home, and his family against mob of racist invaders? Why would Rep. Thomas say that "though he considered quietly voting against the bills but couldn't do it unless references to the 'Dr. Ossian SWEET Self Defense Act' were changed"? Bear in mind that he was opposed to the bill, that the bill would have codified Dr. Sweet's right to defend his home, and also would have made his prosecution highly unlikely if not impossible because of the legal presumption. Surely it cannot be that Rep. Thomas doesn't think Dr. Sweet had a right to defend his home? Or can it? His explanation only puzzled me further: Thomas said the legislation would offend many people because the circumstances behind the case created a constant source of fear for black people. For one, the case was decided by a white jury and included white legal council. Secondly, the issue of mob rule was prominent in the case.What happened to Dr. Sweet was an outrage. That charges were brought was an outrage. The prominence of mob rule makes it even more of an outrage. So how does a bill with a stated goal of preventing such outrages become "shameless pandering" if it is named for the victim? And what gives someone who is opposed to such a bill the right to dictate the removal of Dr. Sweet's name from it? As usual, I'm not getting it. I can't be sure of the reasons, but I can speculate, and I think the answer might lie in identity politics. It sounds as if certain black left wing activists believe that because Dr. Sweet was black, his identity is owned collectively -- by them, of course -- and they demand that he be counted within "their" ranks. But because they oppose the right to self defense, they will not tolerate dissent within the ranks, so Dr. Sweet's name must never be linked to self defense -- even though that was a principle for which he was willing to sacrifice his life. Moreover, they wanted his name off the bill because had it been there, it would have constituted an ever-present reminder that by voting against it, they voted against Dr. Sweet's right to defend his home against a racist mob. And what a cruel irony that is. Seriously, I don't believe I've ever seen a more monstrous example of the tyranny that is identity politics. I think that if the brave Dr. Sweet knew, he'd cry out from his grave. posted by Eric on 10.28.09 at 10:50 AM
Comments
I would like to note that he, Sweet, was absolutely wrong. "I have to die a man or live a coward." He lived like a man. That's my favorite choice, the one I always try to go for. Veeshir · October 28, 2009 05:21 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2009
September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
A Seat At The Table
Making a hero disappear Health Care Mantra An opinion at gunpoint is no longer an opinion And what if we're all wrong? A Libertine Speaks "outside the Democratic norms of our society" Herding Junkies Government Finance Reform The past is an ever-persistent now, more than ever!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"But because they oppose the right to self defense..."
Yes, but also because they perceive violent racist mobs as most likely to be composed of blacks seeking to do violence upon whites, Jews, and Asians--and they prefer to enable such mobs, not hinder them.