Posted on 01/04/2002 11:35:35 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:08:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
"I have to die a man or live a coward." With these words, a mild-mannered black Detroit physician set in motion forces that would result in a dramatic milestone in America's civil rights movement, extending the notion that a man's home is his castle to blacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...
Not many people know about this case. I didn't know about it until I looked at the history of our CCW law. It was aimed specifically at Dr Sweet. Later, it applied to people of all races.
So you are OK, then, with mob-enforced segregation? Sheez...
2. The man was a doctor, so he was probably financially okay.
3. A man's home is his castle. They were trying to run him out. The Klan was strong in that period. Rocks can kill by the way. Ask Reginald Denny.
This man was rightly in fear of his life, and he did what he had to do.
Read the story again and note:
In his charge to the jury Judge Murphy indicated clearly his belief that a man's home is his castle and that no one has a right to invade it.
But in all honesty, all federal and state laws that limit the ability of American citizens to defend themselves, their families and their property are illegal and unconstitutional.
In one of the latest issues of American Handgunner is a story about guns in WWII. Near the end is a story of a conference held aboard the USS Constellation in 1960 between survivors of the war. An American Commander asked the Japanese representatives why they did not invade America after attacking Pearl Harbor. To paraphrase - "Because American citizens had guns" - was the answer.
Everyone, black, white, red, green, conservative or Dim has the God-given right to defense.
It might be good to publicize this. Are contemporary (1927) sources available to document the Klan's hand in passing CCW laws?
I read the entire thing.
This trial took place in 1925, segregation was quite legal, restrictive covenants legal and given that I stand by comments that, under those circumstances, what the Dr. did was, if not 1st degree murder, certainly manslaughter.
Slavery was legal also. Would you say that in 1848 a slave should have had no rights to escape from his master? Sheeez - legalities are more important to you than liberty...
Leaving aside the merits of the case to suggest as this article does that Dr. Sweet was 'not looking for trouble' is ridiculous.
If you're going to blame the victim then there really are no merits to the case are there so why pretend there are any just to make your BS sound plausible?
Here this man moves into an all-white neighborhood from which another black doctor had just been run out of and he was not 'looking for trouble'? That a police guard had been posted outside his home and that he brought guns and 'friends and relatives' to stay with him indicates he damn sure was "looking for trouble".
Oh, so the man can't take some basic precautions to protect himself based on what he knows about a neighborhood? Like you wouldn't take certain precautions while traveling in a black neighborhood based on what you know/think goes on there. I suppose if he'd just moved there and passively took whatever those racist pigs gave him he'd be a hero in your eyes?
I would also suggest that IF he did in fact get a mortgage on a $18,500 house in an all white neighborhood with a $3500 down payment he didn't get it from a bank. That really needs to be explored for I suspect that house was being financed not by a bank but a political organization. The NAACP itself perhaps.
Like somebody can't save their own money. Also, there were some black banks and savings and loans back then, so one of them could have lent him the money and some white banks would have too, especially his being a doctor and all. News Flash- not every black person needs the help of the NAACP to fight racism. Some of us can do that quite well on our own.
No this whole thing to me seems a staged confrontation and would the Detroit News be so charitable if the Ku Klux Klan had attempted to move their offices into a black neighborhood, brought guns and 'friends and relatives' to help them move and then shot down a blackman during a melee outside their new offices. I think not.
For you to compare Dr. Sweet to the KKK is stupid and insulting. But then, there really isn't much comparison since the KKK is unlikely to move into a black neighborhood anyway and even if they would, blacks don't have much of a history of running whites out of black neighborhoods.
I would have convicted Dr. Sweet of murder.
I wouldn't have but then, I probably wouldn't have had the same chance as you to be on a jury back then.
abwehr, I've seen some offensive posts from you before but this one takes the cake. What will it take for some of you to realize that some whites are capable of brutal racism or that some black victims are innocent and have done nothing that would justify the actions of some KKK wannabe? Instead of accepting the fact that these racist slimeballs may have been wrong to deny a man the freedom to enjoy a home his money purchased, you have to make the man wrong for defending himself. What is this, the 2nd Amendment is for everyone but black folks? I guess so in your little world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.