The Castle Doctrine & Stand Your Ground ..The Trial of Dr. Ossian Sweet

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://sweettrials.udmercy.edu/lesson_plan.pdf.......Here is more history

The Trial of Dr. Ossian Sweet

THE PEOPLE VS. AUGUSTUS POND

The legal basis upon which the Ossian Sweet case was

tried was the 1860 ruling of the Michigan Supreme Court in

the case of The People vs. Augustus Pond.

“

A man assaulted in his dwelling is not obliged to retreat,

but use such means as are absolutely necessary to repel the

assailant from his house, or prevent his forcible entry, even

to the taking of his life. And, if the assault or breaking is

felonious, the homicide becomes, and, at common law,

justifiable, and not merely excusable.

“

The law does not require the necessity for taking human

life to be one arising out of actual and imminent danger in

order to excuse the slayer, but he may act upon a belief,

arising from appearances which give him reasonable cause

that the danger is actual and imminent, although he may

turn out to be mistaken. The guilt of the accused must

depend upon the circumstances as they appear to him and

he will not be held responsible for knowledge of the facts,

unless his ignorance arises from fault or negligence.

”

The Trial of

Dr. Ossian Sweet

I

In 1910 there were approximately 6,000 African-Americans living in Detroit out of a population

of 250,000. Most of them lived in an area immediately east of Woodward Avenue and the

downtown district of the city. These areas were known as Paradise Valley and Black Bottom.

The rapid growth of the automobile industry, the demand for labor during World War I and a severe

farm depression in the years following the War attracted many more African-Americans to Detroit.

By 1925, there were approximately 80,000 African-Americans in the city. The total population of

Detroit had grown to over one million.

The rapid growth had created a severe housing shortage throughout the city. For African-

Americans, the problem was particularly severe. Strict segregation practices in the real estate industry

and the open hostility of white neighborhoods confined most of the newly arrived African-Americans

to the districts traditionally occupied by a much smaller African-

American population.

Dr. Ossian Sweet, an African-American doctor, came to Detroit in the

early 1920s. After studying in Europe, he returned to Detroit. Married

and with a new baby, Dr. and Mrs. Sweet wanted a decent home in

which to raise a family. They

purchased a house in a largely

working class neighborhood at

the corner of Charlevoix and

Garland Avenues. This was several

miles east of Paradise Valley.

The family moved in on

September 8, 1925. They came

with nine friends and relatives.

On the evenings of September 8th

and 9th, white crowds gathered

with the clear intent of intimidat-

ing the Sweets. Rocks were thrown

at the house and a window was

broken. The people inside the

Sweet house in self-defense fired

their guns, wounding one man

and killing Leon Breiner.

The eleven people in the

house were arrested and tried for

murder and conspiracy to commit

murder.

The case hinged on the fundamental arguments of the prosecutor,

Robert Toms, and the defense, led by Clarence Darrow.

Robert Toms argued that in the final analysis, a group of people

inside the house fired shots into a group of people outside the house

that posed no threat to the Sweet family. Leon Breiner was killed in that

fusillade. He was standing on a porch across the street and with his back

to the Sweet house. Obviously, Toms argued, Breiner posed no threat.

Darrow insisted that the crowd was a mob with clearly malicious

intents. The history of racial relations and tensions gave the Sweets every

reason to believe that their property and lives were endangered and they

were justified in acting accordingly.

The Trial of Ossian Sweet

FACT SHEET

Both sides generally agreed on the main facts of the case.

They are listed below with the points of disagreement.

1. The Sweets moved into the house prepared to defend

themselves. Nine male friends and relatives were in the

house with Dr. and Mrs. Sweet. The prosecution argued

this indicated premeditation. The defense said it was

simply good sense.

2. Upon hearing of the Sweet

’

s purchase of the home,

a neighborhood association, The Waterworks

Improvement Association, was formed. The

defense argued that the reason for the Association was

obvious

—

to drive out the Sweets. The prosecution felt

the Association was of little consequence. Only a few

witnesses admitted its existence. Only one indicated that

its reason was to keep African-Americans out of the

neighborhood.

3. A crowd of people gathered in the area on September 8th and 9th. The size was disputed. The

prosecution called many witnesses that testified the crowd was between thirty and fifty people.

The defense witnesses argued the crowd was much larger.

A reporter for the Detroit News who was on the scene at the time of the shooting put the

crowd at approximately 400-500. One African-American who happened to be driving through

the area that night with two relatives estimated the number to be between 1,000 and 1,500.

He also testified that the crowd threatened them as they drove by.

4. The crowd threw rocks at the house before the shooting. Two windows were broken. How

many rocks were thrown was disputed. The defense contended there was a large number. The

prosecution, while admitting to some, brought forward many witnesses who denied seeing any

rocks being thrown.

5. Aside from the rock throwing, The Sweet house was not attacked and the crowd, whatever the size,

does not appear to have been on the Sweet property.

6. Police were present and the Sweets knew the police were to be on duty to protect them. The prose-

cution contended this was sufficient to protect the Sweets. However, others stated that the police

took no actions to protect the property of the Sweets.

7. The shots that killed Leon Breiner came from inside the Sweet house.

The Trial of Dr. Ossian Sweet

EXCERPTS FROM THE CLOSING ARGUE-

MENTS OF CLARENCE DARROW

From Attor

ney for the Dammed

, ed. Arthur Weinberg

My friend Mr. Moll says, gentlemen, that this isn’t a race question. This is a murder case.

We dont want any prejudice; we dont want the

other side to have any. Race and color have noth-

ing to do with his case. This is a case of murder.

I insist that theres nothing but prejudice in this

case; that if it was reversed and 11 white

man had shot and killed a black while protecting

their home and their lives against a mob of blacks,

nobody would have dreamed of having them

indicted. I know what Im talking about, and so

do you.

Now, what was this combination, gentlemen?

Your own sense will tell you what it was.

Did they combine to go there and kill somebody?

Were they looking for somebody to murder? Dr. Sweet scraped together his small earnings and by

his industry put himself through college, he scraped together his small earnings of $3000 to buy

that home because he wanted to kill somebody?

It is silly to talk about. He bought that home just as you buy yours, because he wants a

home to live in, to take his wife in to raise his family. There is no difference between the love of

a black man for his offspring and the love of a white. He and his wife have the same feeling of

fatherly and motherly affection for their child that you gentlemen have for yours, and that your

father and mother had for you. They bought that home for that purpose; not to kill somebody...

They went there to live. They knew the dangers. Why do you suppose they took these guns

and this ammunition and these men there? Because they wanted to kill somebody? It is utterly

absurd and crazy. They took them there because they thought it might be necessary to defend their

home with their lives and they were determined to do it. They took guns there that in case of need

they might fight, fight even to death for their home, for each other, for their people, for their race,

for their rights under the Constitution and the laws under which all of us live; and unless men

and women will do that, we will soon be a race of slaves, whether we are black or white

[RGinWA 816]

Too long...do you have it on Audible?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

You won't find many people on here who would disagree with the Castle Doctrine, myself included.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

This is a mess. Anyone have the TL; DR version? The formatting is bizarre and hard to read.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Penny Lane

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

This is a mess. Anyone have the TL; DR version? The formatting is bizarre and hard to read.

http://sweettrials.udmercy.edu/lesson_plan.pdf

and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossian_Sweet

Edited July 19, 2013 by the maven

[Sousuke 1,214]

Too long...do you have it on Audible?

Summary:

In your home you have the right to stand your ground.

Which is logical. This changes though when your in the public domain - if you carry a firearm you have more responsibility than an unarmed person. For this reason, self defense laws should require at least a marginal degree of retreat in the public domain. For this reason, I think stand your ground should be repealed.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Summary:

In your home you have the right to stand your ground.

Which is logical. This changes though when your in the public domain - if you carry a firearm you have more responsibility than an unarmed person. For this reason, self defense laws should require at least a marginal degree of retreat in the public domain. For this reason, I think stand your ground should be repealed.

Yup. Simple concept.

[slim 1,533]

self defense laws should require at least a marginal degree of retreat in the public domain. For this reason, I think stand your ground should be repealed.

So, if I'm out walking with my wife and she's pushing the baby in a stroller, how far do we have to back away from the young men trying to rob us and rape her before we're allowed to stand our ground?

If that one doesn't work, how about a person is on top of me bashing my head into the ground. How do I get away from them?

Still can't grasp a simple concept of being secure in your person wherever you are? Grandma - the little old lady who everyone knows and loves - gets surrounded by a few "nice young men" as she walks toward her car after a doctor's appointment. How do you suggest she "flees" the danger?

Self defense law isn't made for dudes like me one-on-one with another able-bodied male. It's made for everyone. You can't have "special circumstances" depending on who the shooter is. The beauty of our laws is they apply across the board. Why some of you keep trying to make special cases for certain people is beyond me. Especially since you're also the "everyone is equal" crowd.

[RGinWA 816]

So, if I'm out walking with my wife and she's pushing the baby in a stroller, how far do we have to back away from the young men trying to rob us and rape her before we're allowed to stand our ground?

If that one doesn't work, how about a person is on top of me bashing my head into the ground. How do I get away from them?

Still can't grasp a simple concept of being secure in your person wherever you are? Grandma - the little old lady who everyone knows and loves - gets surrounded by a few "nice young men" as she walks toward her car after a doctor's appointment. How do you suggest she "flees" the danger?

Self defense law isn't made for dudes like me one-on-one with another able-bodied male. It's made for everyone. You can't have "special circumstances" depending on who the shooter is. The beauty of our laws is they apply across the board. Why some of you keep trying to make special cases for certain people is beyond me. Especially since you're also the "everyone is equal" crowd.

When would you know this was going to occur? From 20 feet away, 30 feet?

The scenarios you come up with are right out of a bad TV movie.

Then the man said, "I'm going to rape you and rob your wife...wait, rape your wife and rob the baby...wait...BANG"

You're the dangerous person in society. With all you've posted you'd never get off on a shooting. Just an FYI.

[slim 1,533]

When would you know this was going to occur? From 20 feet away, 30 feet?

The scenarios you come up with are right out of a bad TV movie.

Then the man said, "I'm going to rape you and rob your wife...wait, rape your wife and rob the baby...wait...BANG"

You're the dangerous person in society. With all you've posted you'd never get off on a shooting. Just an FYI.

The scenarios are right out of real life. You can see them on the news or in the paper every day.

I hope I'm never involved in a shooting. But here's the kicker - I will never shoot unless I feel my (or a loved one's) life is at stake. At that point, the last thing I'm worried about is the legality and what's going to happen later. The good news for me (and spoiler for you) is that's perfectly legal in all 50 states.

Sorry, I don't think bears while camping are the only threat in the real world.

[RGinWA 816]

Sorry, I don't think bears while camping are the only threat in the real world.

Bears are not a threat...just ask Gary.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

So, if I'm out walking with my wife and she's pushing the baby in a stroller, how far do we have to back away from the young men trying to rob us and rape her before we're allowed to stand our ground?

If that one doesn't work, how about a person is on top of me bashing my head into the ground. How do I get away from them?

Still can't grasp a simple concept of being secure in your person wherever you are? Grandma - the little old lady who everyone knows and loves - gets surrounded by a few "nice young men" as she walks toward her car after a doctor's appointment. How do you suggest she "flees" the danger?

Self defense law isn't made for dudes like me one-on-one with another able-bodied male. It's made for everyone. You can't have "special circumstances" depending on who the shooter is. The beauty of our laws is they apply across the board. Why some of you keep trying to make special cases for certain people is beyond me. Especially since you're also the "everyone is equal" crowd.

It's amazing that you're this paranoid, but in the case of TM/GZ, you give him every sense of leeway, even though his actions are menacing at best.

[slim 1,533]

It's amazing that you're this paranoid, but in the case of TM/GZ, you give him every sense of leeway, even though his actions are menacing at best.

His actions are legal, at worst.

And just because many of you on these threads don't think it will ever happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It happens every day. I pray it never happens to me and I get to continue practicing marksmanship for fun and sport. But if it does, I'm not going to sit there praying for everything to be OK. I'm going to take swift and decisive action to counter whatever threat presents itself.

I'm really surprised so many in modern America ignore the numbers. Especially since they have no problem posting "other" numbers.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Crime is down overall. Yes, homicides spiked in Florida once SYG was enacted in 2005. So it would make sense to rid the state of this junk and get those number back down where they were before that ####### became law. But even with that spike, crime is down. The paranoia that danger lurks around every corner is just that - paranoia. We live safer lives today than we lived in the 70's and 80's and 90's. That's a simple fact. Which doesn't keep the paranoid from being paranoid, apparently.

[Sousuke 1,214]

So, if I'm out walking with my wife and she's pushing the baby in a stroller, how far do we have to back away from the young men trying to rob us and rape her before we're allowed to stand our ground?

If that one doesn't work, how about a person is on top of me bashing my head into the ground. How do I get away from them?

Still can't grasp a simple concept of being secure in your person wherever you are? Grandma - the little old lady who everyone knows and loves - gets surrounded by a few "nice young men" as she walks toward her car after a doctor's appointment. How do you suggest she "flees" the danger?

Self defense law isn't made for dudes like me one-on-one with another able-bodied male. It's made for everyone. You can't have "special circumstances" depending on who the shooter is. The beauty of our laws is they apply across the board. Why some of you keep trying to make special cases for certain people is beyond me. Especially since you're also the "everyone is equal" crowd.

I think your describing an ambush. I don't believe you need a stand your ground law regarding an ambush. The notion is to retreat if able. In an ambush that often is not possible.