Gentlemen,
I am a firm supporter of Michigan's SYG law. It is Biblical: "Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked," Prov. 25:26 (ESV).
Forcing the innocent to try to run away before "allowing" them to defend their lives is fundamentally at odds with everything that is right; it further victimizes the innocent by confirming to the aggressor that he can continue to press the attack, and the victim has the obligation to get out of the way if at all possible to allow it. The question that arises, then, is at what point has one retreated enough to be "allowed" to defend one's self? The answer to this question, as has been evidenced in states that still require retreat, is that there is no good answer; it is too subjective. And therein lies the problem: every prosecutor has a different idea of what that looks like.
Will the law occasionally be misused? Sadly, the answer is yes - just as nearly EVERY beneficial law will be misused at some point. This is not a valid reason to do away with the law entirely. As Thomas Jefferson observed, "
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." And contrary to what some would have us believe, the data indicate that BLACK victims will successfully make use of this law more frequently than whites, in fact, in numbers out that are actually out of scale with the african-american demographic - you don't hear THAT in the news.
Also contrary to what some would have us believe, according to the FBI's uniform crime reports (UCR), white on black attacks account for LESS than 4% of all violent crimes experienced by black victims - which is what makes it so remarkable when such a thing DOES happen. It is statistically quite rare, yet it is this very rarity that some continue to try to leverage to make it appear that there is an agenda to exterminate blacks - and SYG is supposedly the tool of that genocidal agenda. The objective data do not support this. Black on black crime accounts for more than 90% of violent crimes experienced by blacks, and the FBI UCR indicate that a white person is 50 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime committed by an african-american assailant than the other way around.
SYG is not the problem here; forcing people of ALL ethnicities to try to escape before being allowed to defend themselves is not the answer. Confronting the issues that lead to such attacks in the first place IS the answer. Confronting gang violence, single parent families, music that glorifies violence, the drug culture - THESE are the issues that should be occupying the time and demanding the energy of these individuals who came to Lansing today to deny us our right to defend ourselves wherever we have a legal right to be.
It is interesting to me that this push to eradicate SYG comes at a time when Detroit's own Chief of Police is telling Detroiters to stand their ground and defend themselves, to increase the numbers of firearms carriers - something I support wholeheartedly.
Cesare Beccaria made the following observation in the mid 1700s in his famous treatise,
On Crimes and Punishments:
"A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? IT CERTAINLY MAKES THE SITUATION OF THE ASSAULTED WORSE, AND OF THE ASSAILANTS BETTER, AND RATHER ENCOURAGES THAN PREVENTS MURDER, AS IT REQUIRES LESS COURAGE TO ATTACK UNARMED THAN ARMED PERSONS."
Thomas Paine, a Quaker and a pacifist, made the following observation in his letter,
Thoughts on Defensive War:
I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation; but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven he has put it in my power…
Whoever considers the unprincipled enemy we have to cope with, will not hesitate to declare that nothing but arms or miracles can reduce them to reason and moderation. They have lost sight of the limits of humanity...Thus the peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not,others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.
Even the Dalai Lama, despite being known for his pacifist views, acknowledged the necessity of defending one's self using lethal force at times:
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
While the people who came to Lansing today may be well-intentioned, they are also naive if they honestly think that eliminating SYG is going to solve any problems.
The fact of the matter is that our system of justice has generally worked, and those who made claims of self defense where such a claim was not warranted have generally been held to account for their crimes.
SYG is necessary in the day in which we live. We have the right to go about our business unmolested, and as such, we have the right to defend ourselves wherever such molestation takes place - without requiring the innocent to first retreat.
Do not eliminate SYG.
