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:
(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.
(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).
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.
Ossian Sweet was a doctor who moved his family to an all-white Detroit neighborhood in the 1920s. When Sweet moved in, he asked several friends and friends of friends to stay with him and his wife for the first few nights they were to stay in their house.
Sweet was afraid his family would be attacked. His fears were not unmerited because several black families who tried to penetrate all white neighborhoods were harmed and/or driven from their homes.
A mob, or large group of people, depending on who was asked, stood outside of the Sweet's house. Finally someone threw a rock and one of the men who was defending Sweet's house started shooting out the window and into the crowd.
He killed a white man and he and several of the black men in the house, including Sweet, had to go to court in what became a very publicized case.
Sweet eventually won on the grounds that he was reasonable to be afraid that his family was going to be attacked and possibly killed. The legislation before the state Senate is intended to give homeowners a tool to protect themselves from danger and so it was named the "Dr. Ossian Sweet Self Defense Act."
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.
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?
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.
"I urge you to take away this shameless pandering and move on with your case," Thomas said.
No one objected to having the "Dr. Ossian Sweet Self Defense Act" language taken out of all six bills.
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
"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.
pst314 · October 28, 2009 11:21 AM
I would like to note that he, Sweet, was absolutely wrong.
Not just kind of wrong, but totally 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.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
"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.