Ann Arbor calling on Michigan Legislature to repeal Stand Your Ground law
Mozhgan Savabieasfahani holds up a sign reading "black life matters" at Thursday night's Ann Arbor City Council meeting. She and several other residents came out to support a resolution calling for the repeal of Michigan's Stand Your Ground law.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The council voted 10-1 to send a message urging state lawmakers to repeal Michigan's Self Defense Act of 2006, which has similarities to Florida's so-called Stand Your Ground law.
The resolution was sponsored by council members Chuck Warpehoski, Sumi Kailasapathy, Mike Anglin and Sabra Briere.
It notes gun violence is the leading cause of death for black teens and one of the leading causes of death for Latino and American Indian teens.
Lefiest Galimore urges council members to pass the resolution against Stand Your Ground on Thursday.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Council members said research shows a "troubling pattern of racial disparity" in the application of Stand Your Ground laws in which white-on-black shootings are more likely to be found justified, while black-on-white shootings are less likely to be found justified.
"The more I looked into Stand Your Ground laws, the more disturbing I found them," Warpehoski said. "Research shows they do not provide a deterring effect against crimes."
Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, was the only one to vote against the resolution, arguing it wasn't an issue the council should be weighing in on as a body.
Kailasapathy read a prepared statement explaining why she thought it was important for the city to weigh in on state and national issues of racism and gun violence.
"We do not live in a post-racial society," she said. "Unfortunately, there are still groups of people who are profiled, stalked and killed because they belong to a stigmatized minority group."
Kailasapathy said Michigan's version of Stand Your Ground is flawed because it condones the use of deadly violence even when there is an opportunity to retreat.
"In effect, a so-called 'self-defense law' turns into a license to kill in the hands of vigilantes," Kailasapathy said.
Council Member Sumi Kailasapathy, D-1st Ward, read a prepared statement explaining why she thought it was important for the city to weigh in on state and national issues of racism and gun violence.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"These Stand Your Ground laws have become a hunting license to be used against black men and black boys," Blaine Coleman told council members. "It's a sad thing that in 2013, black people still have to come to a City Council and say, 'Please don't shoot us.' "
Coleman is pushing the City Council to also pass a resolution urging Congress to spend $1 trillion to "rebuild Detroit and every inner city."
In 2006, Michigan passed Public Act 309 — the Michigan Self Defense Act — which mirrors the Stand Your Ground laws of other states. The law effectively eliminated Michigan's longstanding common law necessity requirement for lawful use of deadly force.
"As someone who's not big on guns, the idea that Michigan law actually allows people to use gun violence when they have an opportunity to retreat was news to me," Briere said. "It's not something I had thought about before it came up with the Trayvon Martin case."
Another Michigan law, Public Act 319 of 1990, prevents local governments from establishing their own regulations for the sale, transfer, transportation or possession of firearms and ammunition.
The City Council is calling on state lawmakers to repeal both the 1990 law and the 2006 law and to adopt "common-sense gun regulations" such as improved background checks, strengthened gun-free zones, and limits on the sale of high-capacity magazines.
"This is about public safety," said Council Member Jane Lumm, an Independent who represents the 2nd Ward. "I think having local control over these matters is a good thing."
Mayor John Hieftje, who is part of a national coalition called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said he was happy to support the resolution Thursday night.
"Our police officers can easily go into a situation where they are outgunned, where the perpetrators of a crime have more effective weapons with higher-capacity magazines than the police officers will," he said. "That should not seem right to just about anybody."
Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, said he's noticed long lines of people waiting to get concealed weapons permits from the Washtenaw County Clerk's Office.
"The lines for concealed weapons permits are just breathtaking in terms of how many people are coming in to get permits for guns," he said. "It is disturbing."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Jaime Magiera
Tue, Aug 13, 2013 : 3:28 p.m.
Apparently, I was quoted in the print edition in regards to this article, but my name was spelled wrong.
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Aug 15, 2013 : 4:47 a.m.
Indeed. Right up there with children starving in Africa and people voting Republican.
genetracy
Tue, Aug 13, 2013 : 9:22 p.m.
Oh the tragedy.
Tyler Cruse
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 10 p.m.
I assume that everybody agrees that the Zimmerman trial was fair and the jury made a just decision. The FBI concluded that race was not part of the event. We also should all acknowledge the SCOTUS has ruled that Police (e.g. government) has no duty or responsibility to protect any individual. So the only person responsible for your safety is you. So, I want the government (state, local, federal) to stand up for the victim and not for the criminal. The rights of the victim is more important than the rights of the criminal. So, we should all support SYG and Castle laws. This city council either does not understand the law or is intentionally attempting to play to a radical liberal political element (or maybe Mayor Bloomberg)
Colorado Sun
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 7:07 p.m.
Wow! Blaine Coleman, fresh after getting "big bucks" for the ACLU in the legal battle with the AATA, is now taking on the "Stand You Ground" law. Ann Arbor loves Blaine and Mozhgan!
Laurie Barrett
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 2:07 p.m.
Machine gun the pacifists!
Ricebrnr
Mon, Aug 12, 2013 : 4:59 p.m.
Usually...when those same pacifists don't have similarly armed people to protect them... Black Panthers and MLK for example.
bugmenot
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 3:59 a.m.
"Warpehoski said. 'Research shows they [Stand Your Ground laws] do not provide a deterring effect against crimes.' " They weren't designed to deter crimes. They were enacted to protect law-abiding people in self-defense cases from being prosecuted for not abjectly yielding to or fleeing from criminals. If Warpehoski had any evidence that Stand Your Ground laws increased crimes then you can be sure he would have said so; instead, he falls back on the red herring that they don;t deter crimes,
bugmenot
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 3:17 a.m.
Ryan Stanton writes: "In 2006, Michigan passed Public Act 309 — the Michigan Self Defense Act — which mirrors the Stand Your Ground laws of other states. The law effectively eliminated Michigan's longstanding common law necessity requirement for lawful use of deadly force." The law did no such thing. Stanton apparently didn't read Michigan's Self-Defense Act, MCL 780.971 et seq. It imposes several common law self defense principles and specifically invokes the common law in sections 3 and 4. Here's what Mlive reported on June 14, 2012: "In a lot of ways, the law didn't change what had always been the case," said Peter Henning, a criminal law professor at Wayne State University. "But what it appears to have done is got rid of any requirement to retreat, although even that was limited. It had to be outside the home, and you only had to retreat if there was a reasonable and apparent means to escape from the confrontation." In any case, the caterwauling about Stand Your Ground is a red herring with respect to the Trayvon Martin killing. George Zimmerman never used a Stand Your Ground defense and the only witness to testify on the law was a prosecution witness.
bugmenot
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 2:53 a.m.
It's too bad Savabieasfahani didn't use the famous photo of Malcolm X holding an actual assault rifle, an M1 carbine with not one but two 30-round magazines. I guess that would have undermined her position. Malcolm X was a firm advocate of not retreating from threats of violence. In his famous 1964 speech "The Ballot or the Bullet" he advocated for "an uncompromising stand" explaining "I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do." He also knew that gun control laws are fundamentally a tool of oppression Later that year he told the audience at the second OAAU rally: "The [New York] City Council right now is considering a law that's designed to make it illegal for you to walk with a rifle or have a rifle. Why just now? As long as it's been legal to own a rifle, why all of a sudden does the great white father want to pass a law making rifle-carrying illegal? Because of you; he's afraid of you getting rifles. Every law that they pass is aimed at you. Every legislator who walks inside the place where they make these laws, they think about you. They argue all night long on other laws. But when it comes to passing a law designed to keep you and me in the corral, they can pass it just like that." There can be little doubt that Malcolm X would have supported Stand Your Ground laws. He was opposed to racists targeting Black people but there's no evidence that Trayvon Martin's death had anything to do with his race. A Florida jury cleared George Zimmerman of any crime. The day before the verdict "The Orlando Sentinel" reported: "Federal civil-rights investigators interviewed dozens of George Zimmerman's friends, neighbors and co-workers, and no one said he was a racist, records releas
genetracy
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 3:25 p.m.
Trayvon Martin died in February of 2012. Since then, can anyone document one case in the USA where a young black male was shot and killed by a non-black male who claimed "stand your ground"?
a2citizen
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 4:22 p.m.
Lynn, Link please. gentracy said "...document..." Sounds like your referring to just another night in the 'hood.
genetracy
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 1:49 p.m.
So Lynn, what was the resolution of this case? Was the shooter arrested, convicted, and currently sitting in prison? Or did this incident ever happen and it is more left wing urban legend perpetuated by the media?
Lynn Liston
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 3:01 a.m.
There was another case in which a man waiting in a parking lot at a store confronted some black youths in another car over their loud music; he subsequently pulled out a gun and fired shots into the car, and then took off with his girlfriend. When later apprehended, he claimed he felt threatened....a young man was killed when he shot into the car. Would someone please explain how being the one to start an argument over loud music gives you the moral high ground to kill a kid? Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep your mouth shut, and leave when your girlfriend came out of the store? I think this kind of gun violence at the hands of aggressive, unstable persons is what people find troubling about SYG laws. It seems to remove the obligation to behave responsibly, avoid creating conflict and to use good sense in resolving it. And to choose to mind your own business even if something annoys you and to show a little tolerance. No one should be a shooting statistic because someone else wants to start a fight with them.
OLDTIMER3
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
Google MICHIGAN SYG Law and READ the results. It isn't what some of these commenters think it is.
OLDTIMER3
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
They talk about applications being up so much but don't mention the sex of the ones applying. I read some place that there are way more women applying than men. I wonder if that is the case in A2 because of all the attacks on women?
alittlesanityplease!
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
Thanks Marcia Higgins for having common sense. A rare gem in government.
newsboy
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 5:31 a.m.
I can only stand my ground when I haven't been drinking. So sad Marsha; you're the only one who stood her ground, the rest were drinking! The party was awesome though; art was everywhere and we just kept spending. When I awoke in my home in Ann Arbor; I found my tax bill sitting on the table. I looked it over from top to bottom but I still can't figure out what they charged for all those clowns? What; was everyone chanting about Zinngerman's shooting anyway?
Arboriginal
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 3:35 p.m.
Love it!
Doc03911
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 5:03 a.m.
For the last year I've read a lot of left leaning AA folks comments about the awful cities of Ypsilanti and Detroit. Now they want to eliminate laws that would turn AA into a Chicago. Makes sense to me. You deserve what you vote for.
DJBudSonic
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 4:40 a.m.
The city council voted yes on a resolution titled: Resolution Calling for Repeal of Michigan's Stand Your Ground Law and for Strengthening Firearm Regulations. I agree with Ms. Higgins that resolutions like this are not the best use of City Council time. And this issue engaged parts of the community to exercise their right to speak before council on matters that appear on the agenda, and this group of residents spoke with great emotion and expressed their concerns well. That is nice to see. But the repeal of PA 309 and PA 319 alone won't do it, these are the politically charged laws that get people riled up. Any call to repeal a Public Act in order to strengthen firearms regulations would have to include a call for the repeal of Public Act 377. Public Act 377 limits municipal authority to add further restrictions to state law, and also allows handgun purchasers who are non-cpl holders to aquire a license to purchase from any municipality, and return it to any other municipality. So our local law enforcement has no idea how many or what type of handguns are here. From this standpoint, Public Act 377 does as much to weaken our city's firearm regulations as anything else, and it's repeal should have been included in any call to strengthen firearms regulations. But that is not what this was about. This was about advocating against social injustice, which should not come down to a grandstand, majority vote of city council to speak on our behalf. BTW, I support the right of the people to lawfully obtain and own firearms, under state and federal constitutional protections. I also support having an adequately staffed, informed and proactive local police department, which can help reduce gun violence, and protect the rights of all citizens. If PA 309 and PA 319 were to be repealed, and the right to self defense was returned to the state's common law right, would it really change anyone's behavior, or protect more people from gun violence? Not likely.
SonnyDog09
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:48 a.m.
Do we know how many council members actually own a firearm?
DJBudSonic
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 6:05 a.m.
Now that would be some investigative journalism. Get on it, Ryan. Ask the tough questions. Of course, firearm ownership is not something one advertises, fear of theft, etc.
Doc03911
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 4:47 a.m.
All of them but they won't admit it. Plus when a ban goes into effect they will be the "only ones"
genetracy
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:18 a.m.
How many times does the "stand your ground" fallacy in the Zimmerman case have to be pointed out by the average reader? Stand your ground was not used as a defense in the trial and the whole case was based on basic self defense. It was never brought up in the trial, OK? The only people who constantly bang the drum that stand your ground is evil and somehow related to Trayvon Maritn's death are the media and the clowns (like above) who the media gravitates to in order to pursue their agenda.
LAW
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 1:21 a.m.
Why don't you let Florida citizens decide what they think is good for their citizens and not even comment about what happens in their state? Jackson and Sharpton didn't say a word about the beating one white student took by three black thugs, did they? Nor does the City Council care about all the black on black crime that kills so many in cities like Chicago, do they?
Fred Pettit
Mon, Aug 12, 2013 : 3:22 a.m.
Well said LAW. City Council is unfortunately clueless about what is really going on. They are driven by the party line of the democrats and liberals. Just look at the unintelligible comment from out mayor. Can you say CLUELESS? Sure ya can.
Arborcomment
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 1:17 a.m.
When does the nuclear free zone again come up for vote?
Jay Thomas
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 1:05 a.m.
"The lines for concealed weapons permits are just breathtaking in terms of how many people are coming in to get permits for guns," he said. "It is disturbing." I'm so happy right now. This is great.
Jay Thomas
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 1:01 a.m.
"It's a sad thing that in 2013, black people still have to come to a City Council and say, 'Please don't shoot us.' " Actually, according to the FBI (which tracks this stuff), it is usually those black men and boys who are doing the shooting. I am reminded of what the former chairman of the NAACP said (his words not mine): "We've come to realize that African-Americans cannot handle the responsibility of owning firearms." -- NAACP President Kweisi Mfume It is also ironic that people in Ann Arbor (first picture above) are holding signs with Malcom X on them when Malcom X would have been on George Zimmerman's side. "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X
lilmia
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 4:51 p.m.
you say ironic, i say moronic....people twist things to fit their agendas without researching the history/facts. thank you for this very enlightening statement.
Jaime Magiera
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:33 a.m.
I've seen lots and lots of posts alluding to supporters of stricter gun legislation, and stricter interpretations of self-defense laws, as somehow being "weak". This is the furthest from the truth. It takes courage to not hide behind a weapon. It takes courage to attempt deescalation. It takes courage not shoot every time one feels threatened. It takes courage to continue working towards a world where we minimize the chances of taking a human life in the heat of the moment.
AnnArBo
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 1:12 a.m.
Tell me when someone comes at you with a knife, bat, gun, or fists, how exactly do you de escalate the situation?
Jaime Magiera
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2 a.m.
Actually, no. Just labeling someone a thug and shooting them is stupid. Perfect example being the young man who robbed the stores for his heroin addiction. Did he commit crimes? You bet. Were people scared? Most definitely. However, nobody acted rashly and tried to shoot him. Nobody was hurt. The guy was caught. He'll do his penance and hopefully get help with his addiction. That's the best possible outcome from such a situation. Instantly reaching for a gun could have created quite a different outcome - and not necessarily the perpetrator getting hurt, but the patrons and counter people. Also, I'm pretty sure George Clinton doesn't need me taking any messages back to the mothership. We just need to get funked up.
martini man
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 1:08 a.m.
Jaime ..FYI ...It takes STUPIDITY to let some young thug kill you, when a gunshot to his head would solve the immediate problem. Take this message back to your leaders on the Mother Ship. PS : I know you mean well ..but ....'nuff said
Mikestro
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:12 p.m.
They should stay out of it. Furthermore, stats show blacks use SYG more than any other race.
Doc03911
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 4:44 a.m.
Here http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/07/blacks-benefited-more-than-others-from.html
Jaime Magiera
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:26 a.m.
Please point to these stats.
Greg
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 8:10 p.m.
Proof that there are rocks smarter than some of our so called leaders. No logic, knowledge or thought required.
Barzoom
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 7:52 p.m.
Could we expect anything else?
martini man
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 7:50 p.m.
And just when you think liberals can't get any more pathetic. They are just amazing ...totally amazing !!
RUKiddingMe
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 7 p.m.
It's amazing how everyone just goes along with it when something completely unrelated to race is made completely about race.
Doc03911
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 6:46 p.m.
That's how politicians munipulate us. The Repubs use terror and the Dems use race. I'll never vote for either again.
nicedoggy
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 6:29 p.m.
Oz , Oz ,Oz, Hang your heads in shame. Don't be deceived .This is a constitutional issue. The Hitler Mentality wants to fool you into to laying down your firearms and forfeiting your constitutional rights.
Sparty
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 6:21 p.m.
Stand Your Ground Laws should not apply whenever the Aggressor uses a gun .... regardless of which party is the Aggressor.
Sparty
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 3:41 a.m.
Jay, they do.
Jay Thomas
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:02 p.m.
They don't.
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 10:59 p.m.
That makes absolutely no sense.
lilmia
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 5:13 p.m.
The mayor says, "Our police officers can easily go into a situation where they are outgunned, where the perpetrators of a crime have more effective weapons with higher-capacity magazines than the police officers will," he said. "That should not seem right to just about anybody." Does he think that if stand your ground is repealed, this will change? Will those perpetrators be lining up to turn in all their superior weapons? And does he think those weapons are only used against police?
AnnArBo
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 1:07 a.m.
Have not heard the infamous " cop killer bullets" phrase brought out in a while, maybe need to throw that in with the other garbage.
Westfringe
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 5:03 p.m.
What an absolute waste of time. SYG laws are color-blind STOP THE RACE-BAITING!
Usual Suspect
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:21 a.m.
When race-baiting is all they have, then race-baiting is all they can do.
Sully
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 5 p.m.
This statement by the Council has so little grounding in reality, it's hilarious. 1) What does Stand Your Ground laws have to do with gun violence in minority communities in general? Not much. 2) There is nothing in the law itself that would directly or indirectly cause it to be applied in different manners when it comes to different races. 3) The statements by Kailasapathy and Coleman that Stand Your Ground laws allow people to purposefully stalk and kill minorities is conspiracy-level paranoia and has no basis in fact. Also, by the fact, that's not what happened in the Zimmerman case. 4) In all the brouhaha about the Zimmerman case, while SYG is part of Florida's self defense law, Zimmerman's defense never used SYG as they argued that Zimmerman did not have an opportunity to retreat. 5) Until the Zimmerman case (which it didn't even apply to), SYG has been relatively uncontroversial. Michigan's SYG was passed by a 90 - 17 margin in the House and a 28 - 10 margin in the Senate. Michigan's SYG law was passed to codify traditionally accepted measures of self-defense.
G. Orwell
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:13 p.m.
I am glad to see, in a liberal news outlet like the AA.com, that 99% of the comments are pro 2nd Amendment, pro self defense, pro freedom. I think the sheep are waking up. Now if we can only convert those in the ivory tower of the city hall.
G. Orwell
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 5:20 p.m.
Sayzme You should be thankful to the patriots for the freedoms you enjoy today. Unless you like the North Korean style govetnment. The city council seems to like it.
sayzme
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 5:07 p.m.
Such patriots!
Nicholas Urfe
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:10 p.m.
England has many laws that specifically prohibit self defense. If someone breaks into your home and you injure them with a knife or a stick, you will likely be charged with a crime. Because you defended yourself in your own home. If you like that sort of thing, move to England. Most of us do not want that here.
Nicholas Urfe
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:10 p.m.
I will add that this is a big reason why England has more violent crime than the US.
seasons
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:09 p.m.
Stand your ground laws should not give license for someone to chase another person because they don't like the way they look and then shoot them. That is hardly standing your ground - that is the hunt and kill mind set. Repealing the stand your ground law is hardly repealing the right to bear arms. They are two entirely different topics.
Ricebrnr
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 4:50 p.m.
Tano, You argue that GZ attacked TM. When called on it, that there is no evidence of such, you indicate there's no evidence because there's no opposition witness. So you can base your allegations on "no evidence" but when all AVAILABLE evidence supports the one account, you opine that is not a reasonable argument....and round and round you go...
Usual Suspect
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:22 a.m.
"Stand your ground laws should not give license for someone to chase another person because they don't like the way they look and then shoot them." They don't. Are you paying any attention at all?
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:48 p.m.
They did not find that Zimmerman attacked first because the only other eyewitness to what actually happened is dead. How are you going to find against someone, beyond a reasonable doubt, when they give the only eyewitness testimony?
Jay Thomas
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:07 p.m.
Arboriginal... only if George Zimmerman attacked him first (which both the original police investigation and now a jury did not find).
Arboriginal
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 8:12 p.m.
Trayvon was standing his ground.
Smiley
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:55 p.m.
Everyone agrees with you, but that's not what happened in the Martin-Zimmerman matter. What you describe is first degree murder, pure and simple.
G. Orwell
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.
Ban automobiles while you are at it. It kills around 40,000 people a year and we had numerous accidents, injuries and deaths lately in Ann Arbor area alone. A man in Venice Beach purposely ran over several people and killed one person. Used his car as a weapon. On second thought, never mind. I don't want to give these people any ideas.
Smiley
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:58 p.m.
mgoscottie - If your goal is simply to save the lives of young people, it's a valid point to consider, because it would save exponentially more children. If that's not the goal, what is the goal?
mgoscottie
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:38 p.m.
Totally the same thing! Sigh....
TheDiagSquirrel
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:06 p.m.
It's no wonder the Ann Arbor City Council is the laughingstock of Ann Arbor. They should spend less time making 'feel-good' resolutions that have no impact whatsoever, and spend more time actually doing things that matter.
M-Wolverine
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:46 p.m.
Does the Mayor even realize that what he said has NOTHING to do with the resolution he's using the statement to support? And if Higgins had voted like she has in the last couple of days the last couple of years, she might still be on the council.
Tru2Blu76
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:40 p.m.
Space restrictions prevented me from responding to: "As someone who's not big on guns, the idea that Michigan law actually allows people to use gun violence when they have an opportunity to retreat was news to me," Briere said. Mr. Briere and to all who think this about Stand Your Ground; it's understandable but you've misunderstood. NO Stand Your Ground laws in any state "allows people to use gun violence when they have the opportunity to retreat." Zero, none, nadda. Stand Your Ground statutes were ALL in response to the previous MUST RETREAT UNDER ALL CONDITIONS requirement of the PREVIOUS long-standing statutes. In other words, it was finally recognized that defenseless victims who couldn't retreat had to have some means of defending against deadly force. If you're outnumbered and outflanked, if you're physically weak or disabled, if you're elderly, if your of small stature: you NO LONGER have to try to retreat when retreat itself would be a potentially disastrous or UNAVAILABLE option. There were many convictions of victims who couldn't retreat but "had to" under the old law. You can't use rare examples like Zimmerman either. First because Stand Your Ground wasn't even brought up in the trial. Second because Zimmerman is STILL a rare example of someone (acting as a neighborhood watchman) who disregarded the dispatch message: "You don't have to do that." (meaning, he followed Martin when he didn't have to) You also can't claim that neighborhood watch programs are havens for racists or "vigilantes." Such groups are almost always under the guidance of local police and many are trained by police to RESTRICT THEMSELVES TO REPORTING ONLY. I am all for making neighborhood watch programs safer for everyone. I am all for better training (in the law as well as in weapons handling) for CPL holders. Just lets not throw these very valuable "babies" (rights) out with the bath water.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 7:16 p.m.
This is simply and totally false. It has NEVER been the law that one must retreat UNDER ALL CONDITIONS. THat is a lie. It has ALWAYS been an ABSOLUTE right for people to defend themselves, with violence IF NECESSARY.
Nicholas Urfe
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4 p.m.
Your well stated and reasoned facts mean nothing to "those people".
Arboriginal
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:36 p.m.
Dear Tough Guy. The most important thing to remember about crime is the element of surprise. The criminal knows they are going to attack you. It's not the movies. You will not suddenly become Bruce Willis, or rattle off a Sam Jackson line. I go to gun ranges on occasion, and not a one of them allows you to practice drawing your weapon. So...maybe you are the exception, but I would speculate that the vast majority of Concealed Carry folks would have their gun removed from them in a blink of the eye and perhaps used against them. Get a gun, get a permit, it is your right. But please don't tell me how you are going to react to the rarest of events that you will most likely never experience.
genetracy
Tue, Aug 13, 2013 : 12:07 a.m.
So Mr Bean, why do you believe criminals have a victim's best interest at heart? I had seconds to react to this situation and neither subject said a word as they hopped out of the car.I had no idea if they were armed or not. Yes I could have handed them my wallet with $10 in it and what if they were expecting more? What if they decided not to leave a living witness? What if they decided to turn it into a racial attack? I guess I could have used all 6'4, 300 lbs of Superhero Arboriginal that night. He could have preached the virtues of non-violence to them.
Steve Bean
Mon, Aug 12, 2013 : 12:03 a.m.
genetracy, why do you think they would have killed you? If they had wanted money, could you have given it to them?
Arboriginal
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 11:56 p.m.
It's Martial Arts buddy, and I don't think it's about firearms.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.
Aboriginal, rather than resort to elementary level debating tactics why don't you test your own theory? There are a number of classes in the area with force on force training. Even more mertial arts schools in the area. Go to any one of them and try to disarm them. See what happens if you do. Having been a practitioner knowing weapons disarms and taught new tricks to other instructors, you will be in for an eye opening experience. So I ask do you want to know the truth or will you continue to be a keyboard tough guy?
genetracy
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 3:22 p.m.
An Ypsi thing Arboriginie? Sounds like a racist comment to me.
genetracy
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.
So tell me Arboriginie, how could I have handled it differently? I have been around enough to know those guys were not going to ask me if I was having a nice day. To answer your question, those were the last guys I drew down on. Let me ask you a question, how you have handled the situation? Use some of your mystical Ann Arbor powers to show the young men the errors of their ways? Or you would you just be a willing victim?
Arboriginal
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:18 p.m.
Thanks for telling me like it is Tough Guys.
Doc03911
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 4:34 a.m.
" but I would speculate that the vast majority of Concealed Carry folks would have their gun removed from them in a blink of the eye and perhaps used against them." But somehow men, women and kids do it everyday without loss of their firearm and prevent their deaths. For practice on the draw, it's called dry fire. It can be done anywhere. Your welcome.
Arborcomment
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 1:12 a.m.
Thank you genetracy for explaining reality. I notice those dissenting have moved on to their own little universe (without comment).
genetracy
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:03 a.m.
I am 59 years old. I had major reconstructive surgery on my left hip and walk with a pronounced limp. I have a CCW and am well trained with firearms. I also like to walk my dog at night. I live on the west side of Ypsi. Last summer, just before midnight, I was walking my dog in my neighborhood when a car drove by. I thought nothing of it until it came back by, traveling real slow. A few minutes later, I saw the same car traveling towards me at a higher rate of speed. The car drove right to the curb and stopped. Two guys got out of the passenger side and began to walks towards me. My gun was out, and pointed at them. I announced I had a gun and was prepared to used it. I told them to get in their car and leave, which they did without protest. Now, what do you think they wanted? Directions? A light? Make idle chit chat? They looked to be about 20 and if I was attacked without my handgun, what would me options have been? Run? No. Fight back? Too old. Call me a vigilanty if you want but my gun probably saved my life that night. I did not report the incident to YPD and funny thing, the other guys did not either.
Jay Thomas
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:18 p.m.
This is the standard liberal gun control argument I have heard as long as I can remember. They like to pretend that the minute someone decides to become a criminal they become Bruce Lee and can disarm you easily thanks to their new super powers. You are NOT more likely to be harmed by your own weapon than from a criminal. All of that was proven false EONS AGO.
Arboriginal
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 8:15 p.m.
Oh, it was "some" people. Never to be confused with "those" people. You know what "they" say!
Nicholas Urfe
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 5:45 p.m.
I don't cower at home, like some would ask us to do.
Arboriginal
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:32 p.m.
Nick, if walking around a "Big City" at night terrifies you, you should stop doing it.
Nicholas Urfe
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:05 p.m.
"most likely never experience." Hah. If only that were the case. Guess you have never walked at night in a big city and been sized up by street thugs trying to decide whether they will jump you. Their perception of your vulnerability and confidence are key. Whether they think you have a gun. Whether you allow anyone to get behind you. Ever had someone ask you what time it is, hoping you are dumb enough to pull out a shiny new iphone?
bobslowson
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:45 p.m.
Well said
G. Orwell
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:24 p.m.
"Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, said he's noticed long lines of people waiting to get concealed weapons permits from the Washtenaw County Clerk's Office." "The lines for concealed weapons permits are just breathtaking in terms of how many people are coming in to get permits for guns," he said. "It is disturbing." Every day we read in the AA.com about bank robberies, home invasions, assaults, murder, rapes, and Kunselman is disturbed that people are applying for CCW licenses? Does this guy live in Ann Arbor or in Wonderland. All the council members are out of touch with reality and must despise the Constitution. Let's get some constitutionalist into office to protect our civil rights.
Tru2Blu76
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:06 p.m.
Mention is made of the large (proportionate) increase in CPLs. Yes, it looks that way - under the former "May Issue" licensing "idea": local gun boards kept the total number of Michigan CPLs (issued) at about 49,000 statewide. In other words, it was a quota system which effectively built a pent up demand. The Shall Issue law came about as a response to that unjust system and as part of the trend which started in 1995 when only 25 of 50 states had Shall Issue laws. Today, there're over 400,000 CPL holders in Mich. but that's only 5% of the adult population. Today, 40 of 50 states have some version of Shall Issue laws (just like Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine have increased nationally). This includes Illinois after the Supreme Court struck down that state's ONLY total prohibition on concealed carry. I advise these well-meaning people to toss their emotion-based thinking and clearly understand: the vast majority of citizens WANT laws which enhance a person's ability to defend their lives and defend their families - REGARDLESS of the skin color of potential threats. Mayor Hieftje: "Our police officers can easily go into a situation where they are outgunned, where the perpetrators of a crime have more effective weapons with higher-capacity magazines than the police officers will," - This is utter nonsense, this man forgets what Liberty Street looked like in 1995 when First Lady Clinton came to Borders for a book signing. ANN ARBOR POLICE armed with deadly "riot" shotguns, semi-auto pistols and automatic weapons WITH HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES formed a circle around Ms. Clinton's armored vehicle. Those who came to glimpse of HC got a much better look at the armed might of the AAPD Special Weapons and Tactics Squad. Mayor Johnnie: you've got a small, well equipped army under your command and either you conveniently forgot or are purposely avoiding mentioning it.
Ricebrnr
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 4:55 p.m.
"Our police officers can easily go into a situation where they are outgunned, where the perpetrators of a crime have more effective weapons with higher-capacity magazines than the police officers will," err...I seen and met some of the members of both the AAPD and WCSO Swat teams...as well as their armament... Good luck and much money will be spent by any law abiding citizens to come up with the same.. Now the criminals on the other hand...well they have no such problems do they?
Nicholas Urfe
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:07 p.m.
Hieftje's comment was really bizzare and shows what a disconnect he has with the people of the city and his people vs. police mindset. It was romney-esque.
ez12c
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:55 p.m.
The Ann Arbor City Council wants to repeal the Michigan Self-Defense Law? Outstanding. Did anybody see the movie THE PURGE? You can do what you want to any Ann Arbor resident and they cannot act in self defense. That's a great idea. Be sure to advertise it world-wide.
Jay Thomas
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:19 p.m.
Liberals have made it quite clear that they are soft targets.
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:49 p.m.
I will never understand the despise liberals have for people defending themselves. I understand the government's motivation for being against it, but other citizens being against the concept of self defense is totally baffling.
Usual Suspect
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:16 a.m.
"So, in your world, Person B just shoots person A." I am having extreme difficulty finding either where I stated this, as well as how any reasonable person would arrive at the conclusion given what I did state. I guess the weekend has started at your place.
Usual Suspect
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:14 a.m.
You obviously have some very different information than the police, the prosecutor, and the jury had. You should have brought this information to their attention before the trial was over. Of course, they would have wondered, as do I, how you got this information, and why it should be considered, seeing as it conflicts with the facts of the case.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:59 p.m.
So, in your world, Person B just shoots person A. But suppose that person A was not really being aggressive, it is just that person B is unduly afraid? This happens like, all the time, you have to admit that. In fact, that is precisely what happened in the Zimmerman case. George was afraid of someone who turned out, in fact, to be entirely innocent - a kid going home from the store after buying some Skittles. So he was afraid, but he had a gun, and the SYG law behind him, so he decided to not back down, and in fact, pursue the person. We do not know what happened then - we do not have both sides of the story, but we do know that a child is dead. If you cannot wrap your head around the fact that this should not have happened, and that the law facilitated the mindset that caused it to happen, then you are not thinking very much.
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:08 p.m.
Person A and Person B meet on the street. Person A becomes aggressive toward Person B. If Person B is expected to run away, it is not irrational, but it gives scum like Person A ownership of the street and control over law-abiding people. Additionally, like I said elsewhere, it only works is Person B (and his children) can run faster than a bullet. This polluted, progressive mindset is clearly contrary to the concept of self-defense and a stable society.
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:02 p.m.
You're missing quite a bit.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 7:22 p.m.
No, that is not what they do. You have a right to protect your life and the life of other innocents, anywhere and everywhere, and it has always been that way. You do not have the right to use excessive force, and you are obliged to take an exit if that is possible, but if it is not, you can defend yourself. The SYG laws merely take away the obligation to walk away from the conflict, if that is possible. That is why they call it "stand your ground" - you no longer have to retreat, if you can do so safely. That is a stupid new standard that guarantees that it will be less likely that conflicts are defused.
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:45 p.m.
I understand that is the perspective of people who believe we should only be able to defend ourselves in our own home, but that is wrong. And of course the stand your ground laws did not grant of those rights, because no law granted us those rights. However, what they do is make clear that our right extend beyond our own home, so they are important.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:26 p.m.
Clearly you do not understand much of anything about this issue. IT is NOT about self-defense. People have ALWAYS had the right to defend themselves. The SYG laws did NOT grant this right, and the repeal of those laws would not tale away those rights.
G. Orwell
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.
Do we have a single person on the city council that understands and supports the Constitution?
DJBudSonic
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.
Not yet, but you never know. There is a slate of independent candidates, maybe someone will stand up and represent the people, not the politics.
G. Orwell
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:35 p.m.
I've been thinking of getting a CCW for a couple of years. These people just made me put it on the top of my to do list. If mine or my family's life is threatened, I will not hesitate. Even if the SYG law is repealed.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 12:47 p.m.
Orwell welcome aboard Tano, incorrect as usual. Self defense starts well before and lasts long after any armed encounter. SYG is as necessary to ones defense after an incident as a weapon can be during. The one you need against criminals the others against over zealous prosecution including in the court of public opinion. Opinions of those not there when you are attacked and question whether you were in emough danger. If you did enough to descalate. If you should have retreated. Etc etc...oh like you see here
Jay Thomas
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:22 p.m.
An Armed society is a polite society. Welcome aboard, Mr. Orwell.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 7:25 p.m.
You may know a lot about gun rights, but you do not know what the SYG law does and doesn't do. This law is a totally seperate issue than CCW issues.
G. Orwell
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:37 p.m.
@Tano I know a lot more about gun rights than you think. I know you do not need a CCW to defend myself and my family in my house or out side of my house. Oper carry is legal in all states. However, because of the phobia of the less informed, I will get a CCW so the sheep cannot see that I am carrying IN PUBLIC. Criminals do go outside occasionally.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:25 p.m.
You don't need a SYG law to defend your family. You seem to have some desperate need for macho posturing, but it is for naught. All people have always had absolute rights to defend their lives and the lives of their family. You don't seem to understand the issues involved with this law at all.
Major
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:33 p.m.
Clueless, feel good, knee jerk legislation will not have ANY effect..never does, never will. What does, always has and always will have an effect, is the basic human right to self defense. In this day and age, self defense may require a gun, sad but true. I for one will never cower and lay down my defense's for scum. What some seem to forget is that these "castle doctrine laws" (better know these days by the media concocted name of "stand your ground"), were created due to an alarming rate of violent crime. Currently, several years after the enactment of castle doctrine laws, we are now seeing unprecedented drops in crime...of all types! I'll fight against misguided feel good laws that are counter to common sense and logic, that empower the criminal element, as will the majority!
walker101
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:33 p.m.
Kailasapathy said Michigan's version of Stand Your Ground is flawed because it condones the use of deadly violence even when there is an opportunity to retreat. I want to know how many ways do we retreat?
G. Orwell
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:25 p.m.
Let me say that again. First gun control laws were enacted to control blacks. Can you imagine the fear of white slave owners when blacks were freed? Particularly if white slave owners abused their slaves. Now put a gun in the hands of newly freed slaves. Gun control is about PEOPLE CONTROL by tyrannical governments. Not about safety. People that believe it is about safety are uninformed and very naive. http://youtu.be/9RABZq5IoaQ
Jay Thomas
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:24 p.m.
That was how it started. The Klan and others didn't want "those people" having guns. How soon we forget.
MikeyP
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:18 p.m.
Not the first time I've been disgusted with the actions of the city council, won't be the last. I live in Ann Arbor and am 100% pro SYG laws. I also have a concealed pistol license and have no qualms with STSTT (Shoot To Stop The Threat). I'm 100% law abiding and will exercise my right to life as needed. Thankfully I doubt this legislature is at all interested in overturning SYG as a whole so this resolution will be for naught (like pretty much all the rest of them), but I do warn them that they're turning away a LOT of dedicated people who could be assets to this town. They'll just be assets elsewhere, and it's looking more and more like I'll be one of them.
Ricebrnr
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 5:01 p.m.
Take mgoscottie's advice at your own peril. If you survive the encounter, you will have negated any SYG protections and opened yourself to a civil lawsuit besides. How you might wonder? ANY firearms use, from drawing, brandishing and to shooting is considered use of lethal force. Shooting someone in the foot is open admission that you did not feel lethal force was required at the time you pulled the trigger. If you think shooting the foot or guns out of hands then firearms ownership with regard to self defense IS NOT FOR YOU. Thank you mgoscottie, VP Biden and others such as yourselves for providing us with ample opportunity to dispel horrible and harmful advice.
mgoscottie
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:35 p.m.
Shoot the foot, not chest/head!
walker101
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
This only applies to citizens that abide to the law, gang bangers, drug dealers, and want to be thugs does not apply. Not to worry our current administration is buying up all the rounds to insure that small caliber ammo will eventually be off the shelves at tax payer expense and be destroyed.
Jay Thomas
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:26 p.m.
What's next, buying up all the media so only a liberal point of view is allowed?
AnnArBo
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:12 p.m.
Actually SYG laws are used by gangbangers all the time and apply to anyone who is defending themselves anywhere they have a legal right to be. I read somewhere that STG laws are used far more by blacks claiming self defense from attack.
A2Realilty
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
How did a case glorified in the media where an Hispanic man shot a African American man become the center piece for a City Council discussion about Black / White racism and the impact of gun control with regard to Black / White racism? Why are we even talking about this?
Billy
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
I am absolutely EMBARRASSED that these "people" are representing me and my city...
Jay Thomas
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:28 p.m.
It sort of doesn't matter. The students and faculty pulling the lever for anyone with a (D) next to their name are the reason we have them to begin with.
John
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:23 p.m.
One mans embarrassment is another mans pride
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
I'd like to know how many people who are in favor of retreating think they can outrun a bullet. I can't, so I won't be retreating.
marmc
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:57 p.m.
Oh please! "a license to kill in the hands of vigilantes" -show me one case of a licensed concealed weapon vigilante. The increase in concealed weapon permit applications is "disturbing"? -why do you suppose this is happening? This is about "public safety"? explain that to me. Lastly, I'm so taken aback by one citizens blatantly racist comment, I can't even form a coherent response.
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:54 p.m.
Headline fail. Ann Arbor is not "calling on Michigan Legislature to repeal Stand Your Ground law," it's just City Council. They are not "Ann Arbor." They are not authorized to represent the city on anything other than city business.
Greg
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:48 p.m.
Certainly no logic needed in Oz. Zimmerman was not convicted by a jury. Blaming guns for criminals actions is nuts. Our founders made the second admendment the second because they considered it important. Seems those out for publicity had Zimmerman convicted before they even found out he was Mexican himself, way funny. In a free society you can defend yourself, in a slave society most ate told they can not. And so on. Seems a "Critical thinking class 101" is hugely needed as a high school requirement as soon as possible as most are letting somebody else do their thinking for them.
mgoscottie
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:34 p.m.
Would you be ok with people legally owning nuclear Explosives ?
marmc
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:42 p.m.
Oh please! Ms. Kailasapathy - show me one case of a gun carrying vigilante. Mr. Kunselman -the rise in people applying for gun permits - "disturbing??" Why do you suppose this is occurring?? Ms. Lumm -public safety?? explain that to me. Mr. Mayor - you are a "mayor Against Illegal Guns" how does that apply to a person with a licensed to carry? Mr. Coleman -I can't even respond to your blatantly comment.
Jaime Magiera
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:22 a.m.
marmc, you mean like the guy who was just arrested with a stash of guns, body armor and survival supplies in his car after threatening, repeatedly, to shoot up the A2 Social Security office?
bobslowson
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.
I was told by Karl Rove that Romney won the election
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:47 p.m.
I was told Lumm was going to be something different.
Jon Wax
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:25 p.m.
anybody looking to repeal that law needs to start brushing up their resume for a new job. that law is solid and is needed. the folks who don't like it actually think it's right for a law abiding citizen to stand down and retreat in the face of a criminal or criminal activity. that is the most inane thing possible. "when they have an opportunity to retreat was news to me" so, wait... you didn't even know the extent of the law, that's been on the books for some time now, until the media managed to push the story into the spotlight? and you support the criminal in this situation. what is this state coming to where the politicians are criminals and the ones who aren't just defer to them? Peace Wax
Gerry
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:10 p.m.
We must address not only the prevalence of guns, which do not make us more safe, but also the hatred, paranoia, and extremism that so often accompanies these deadly weapons.
Gerry
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 3:33 a.m.
A key thing that the Black Panther Party, TEA Party, the NRA, and other extremist movements share is that they assemble and spin random facts to make people angry, because angry people are easily controlled. History has shown that controlling people through anger and hatred is how virtually every dictator has come to power.
Gerry
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 3:29 a.m.
The Black Panther Party are also hateful extremists who should not be able to own guns. There are dangerous extremists on both sides of the isle, such as the Black Panther party, and the TEA Party, which used rediculous claims of "death panels" and "socialism" and advertisements comparing President Obama to Hitler.
Doc03911
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 4:20 a.m.
Gerry you forgot the New Black Panther party screaming kill all white babies.
Jay Thomas
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:39 p.m.
hoplophobia n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns. May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, more, at the mere thought of guns. Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. Point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, it is dangerous, sufferers deserve pity, and should seek treatment. When confronted, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Often helped by training, or by coaching at a shooting range, a process known to psychiatry as "desensitization," often useful in treating many phobias.
Smiley
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:54 p.m.
On the gun discussion, you lost my interest when you limited your analysis to hunting only. I respect your position, but I disagree. On one of your other points, all I've seen the Tea Party say is we should have a smaller, more effective and efficient government. How's is that hateful rhetoric? I think the opponents of the Tea Party want them to be horrible people, but in reality they aren't any more so than those on the other end of the political spectrum. There's a rational basis behind both side's positions, and I think when one shows hate towards their opponent, they are taking the easy way out by not trying to see the world through the eyes of their opponent. Some people are incapable of doing this, but I think most people just refuse to do so out of arrogance.
Gerry
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:21 p.m.
Add to my previous list: -When friends who are doing land surveys for the state have guns pulled on them by property owners. Again, I'd have no problem with responsible, peaceful people hunting, but when these kinds of things go on...
Gerry
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:05 p.m.
I am not afraid of guns. I am afraid of crazy people who own them. 88 year old senile granny becomes rather intimidating when she has an AK-47. I am all in favor of hunting, but when you have: -The hateful rhetoric of the TEA Party. -US Senate candidates (Sharon Angle) calling for "Second Amendment solutions" to disagreements on the budget. -Gun stores selling hoody targets in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting. -Hutaree Militia members getting back their firearms. -Mark Kessler in Pennsylvania spouting his hateful rants. -Ted Nugent, a board member of the NRA, ranting about being dead or in jail within a year in front of paranoid gun owners. I see people with guns who clearly should not be able to have them. The "gun rights" movement demands an all or nothing, no compromise approach. I'll take nothing.
John
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:03 p.m.
Hatred, paranoia and extremism? Congratulations, you just described the Tea Party!
incubo734
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
I think we can say FOX News incites the ignorant masses into thinking whacked out conspiracy theories are normal. Obama is taking your guns. Obama is trampling on the constitution etc.... What we also know, is that viewers of FOX News are the least educated in this country. Ignorance, violence, racism and guns go hand in hand in this country. Sadly, I don't see that changing anytime soon http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching -fox-news-makes-you-less-informed -than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.
Gerry, the fact that you're afraid of guns does not mean the rest of us have to give them up. OK, fine, you don't like them. Nobody is forcing you to have one.
Jon Wax
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:40 p.m.
you mean the hatred and paranoia toward the people who own guns? yeah i agree... time for you guys to get over it. Peace Wax
Smiley
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.
Gerry - I think we can all agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. Do you have a rational suggestion as to how we can better accomplish that goal without violating the Second Amendment in relation to law abiding gun owners?
ussubmariner
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:03 p.m.
The 30-year-old man accused of robbing four Ann Arbor businesses confessed them all in a recorded police interview played for a judge at a hearing Thursday. "I was going through withdrawals," he told a detective during the interview. "I got desperate." "He goes in his pocket and I see the silver tip of a gun," she said. "I thought he was going to shoot us." Abdullah-Albasir is charged with one count of armed robbery in each case. A count of carrying a concealed weapon was added to one case and a count of carrying a weapon with unlawful intent was added to another case at Thursday's hearing. University of Michigan police are investigating four reports of larcenies made Wednesday "More than half of our members moved out of the house due to concerns for their ongoing safety as well as the emotional trauma that all of us have sustained," DeWolf was found dead July 24 from a single gunshot wound to the neck in his basement room at Phi Rho Sigma, 220 N. Ingalls St. in Ann Arbor. My thoughts: Maybe these individuals don't read the papers? I'll keep my gun handy... Thanks
grye
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
If you really think the Zimmerman case was all about race, then you need to read the 911 phone call transcripts. Zimmerman followed the kid as he thought he looked suspicious after several robberies and home invasions in the neighborhood. The 911 call reveals that Zimmerman didn't identify Martin's race until he was asked, and even then said he thought he was black. Zimmerman was heading back to his car when Martin attacked him. Why Martin did this, no one will ever know. Was the Stand Your Ground applied properly after Martin attacked Zimmerman? The jury thought so. Was this killing a race hate crime? Not on Zimmerman's part. For those that disagree with Stand Your Ground laws, regardless of the State, would you rather be killed or defend yourself if attacked? Many comments here read that you would rather be killed or brutally attacked instead of defending yourself since you would rather have Stand Your Ground outlawed.
Doc03911
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 4:15 a.m.
I saw that video on Oprah's network. Five year old girls with dark skin getting blasted by other black children because she's too dark. And who thought them that? The parents and her peers. So leave the race bait out of it. Grye's comment is spot on. Go listen to the tape.
mgoscottie
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:27 p.m.
He thought he was suspicious because he was black. Whatever you want to tell yourself tough I guess....go watch some videos on how 5 year olds see race.
Angry Moderate
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:45 p.m.
According to Trayvon's girlfriend, he felt threatened because Zimmerman looked gay. Of course, A2 has no comment about that profiling.
walker101
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
grye, you'll never convince these people, the media is too bias and they'll find out after its too late.
Jon Wax
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.
he followed him because he was ACTING suspicious, not "looking" suspicious. you don't profile race, you profile behavior. that's what the thugs are doing, so fair is fair. Peace Wax
Halter
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:56 p.m.
If the council passes ridiculous statements like this then the resolution should state that "The Council" believes this and that the people they represent may or may not. There is absolutely no way The Council represents the citizens of Ann Arbor's thoughts on this. They absolutely do not represent mine.
ez12c
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:53 p.m.
Ridiculous.
sayzme
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:57 p.m.
Agreed SYG laws are ridiculous
Smiley
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.
I think these people are misunderstanding the 80/20 principle. You are supposed to focus 80% of your time on the most important 20% of the issues...not 80% of your time on the least important 80% of the issues in your community. And as I understand Michigan law, it's not a "Stand Your Ground" state unless you are in your dwelling or your yard. Anywhere else, you have a duty to retreat if you can do so safely. And let's just assume they get what they want and self defense is no longer permitted. How are they going to respond when a battered woman is dragged through the judicial system because the prosecution has to evaluate whether she could have safely retreated, but due to her fear or other factors she failed to do so? You have to think these things through.
Smiley
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:35 p.m.
I just researched it, and you guys are correct. Thanks
Billy
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:14 p.m.
Nope....in Michigan you have NO duty to retreat as long as you are anywhere you are legally allowed to be. ALSO...deadly force is automatically assumed as justified if the attack was "sudden and violent." That means I can draw and shoot you if you sucker punch me...I probably wouldn't since you ALWAYS assess the situation and target because you draw down...but legally the law will automatically assume my use of a firearm is justified if the attack was "sudden and violent."
Jon Wax
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:33 p.m.
uh no. you don't have any duty or obligation to retreat anywhere. castle law applies to the house, i think SYG applies to any location you happen to be. i don't think they will pass the repeal. but i do think the folks who are on the repeal list need to be out of office asap. Peace Wax
G. Orwell
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:41 p.m.
Don't these people know that first gun control laws were enacted to prevent blacks from obtaining guns. White slave master did not want freedom for the blacks. So, as Obama supporters like to claim racism whenever people oppose Obama's policies, supporting gun control, would be racism.
Rabid Wolverine
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.
Does anyone realize that SYG law never even applied in the Zimmerman case. The defense team did not pursue having the case tried under the Stand Your Ground law because they knew they had a solid case based solely on self-defense. Yet, people are still rambling on and on about this being an issue of SYG....Wise up people. You might but that might actually take using your brain instead of just listening to what the media tells you...
Jay Thomas
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 5:52 a.m.
Tano... it was Martin that walked back to confront Zimmerman. Not the other way around. All Zimmerman did the entire time up to that is WATCH. There is a video with a map out there (I think on Youtube) that shows the paths that Martin and Zimmerman followed. You should see it.
Wehrwolf
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 9:31 p.m.
"... [Zimmerman] knew that under the SYG laws he had no responsibility to deescalate any conflict." And you know this, how? Are you privy to Zimmerman's state of mind that night? Stop your BS speculation. You've already made up your mind that Martin was "stalked"; there's clearly NO evidence to support this either. And don't even start with the nonsense that being followed is the equivalent of "being stalked". If I see you walking around my neighborhood acting suspiciously I'm going to 1.) Call the police and 2.) try to make contact with you verbally to at least let YOU know that I'm aware of your presence. There is nothing "illegal" or reminiscent of "stalking" about that. If you become fearful, violent or aggressive because I try to ask you what you're doing, you're the one escalating the situation, not de-escalating it, as you enjoy professing. You're as clueless as Jaime Maguira.
Jan
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:29 p.m.
To be clear, the reason SYG was not used... At a pretrial immunity hearing, Zimmerman would have to show a preponderance of evidence, quantified as a 51 percent burden, that he acted lawfully under the state's stand your ground statute. Zimmerman likely didn't ask for an immunity hearing before his criminal case, because he would have had the burden to prove he acted lawfully. "When he went to trial, it was the prosecutor's burden to prove he didn't act in lawful self-defense,": The prosecutor also had to prove to a jury Zimmerman's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," a far higher bar to clear than proving a "preponderance of evidence."
Angry Moderate
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4 p.m.
"He did it anyway, even after being told not to by the dispatcher" Please stop with the blatant lies. The dispatcher did NOT tell him not to do anything. The dispatcher said "we don't NEED you" to follow him. Not don't follow him. Not stay in your car. Just we don't "need" you to. This is America, and we are free to do things whether we need to or not.
Rabid Wolverine
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:32 p.m.
" He could "stand his ground" meaning that he could, with the help of his weapon, actually provoke a conflict, and then resolve it violently. The law is an encouragement to people to escalate conflicts. It does not give them the power to defend themselves, since that is a power we all have always had, if the situation truly comes down to that." ---- There are so many falsehoods and opinions (not facts) in your statement it is too glaring not to point out. You cannot provoke any conflict with SYG. SYG only allows the victim from having to flee where they are legally allowed to be without being attacked. Had the facts shows that Zimmerman provoked the conflict then he wouldn't be a free man right now. If someone asks you what you are doing here you do not have the right to assault that person. The SYG law isn't a tool to let people escalate conflicts, it gives law abiding citizens a way to properly defend ourselves without having to turn our backs in order to run away from a violent threat. Zimmerman didn't have a chance to run when he was pinned on the sidewalk. Finally, the law had no bearing on the case. It was handled as a self-defense case. SYG had no bearing on it. Zimmerman would have been innocent in any state regardless of the SYG law...
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:55 p.m.
You are not immune to simply listening to what the media tells you. It is just a different media that you are listening to. Zimmerman should never have followed and confronted Martin. He did it anyway, even after being told not to by the dispatcher, because he was armed and knew that under the SYG laws he had no responsibility to deescalate any conflict. He could "stand his ground" meaning that he could, with the help of his weapon, actually provoke a conflict, and then resolve it violently. If Martin was a bit older, and had a weapon, then he absolutely would have had a right to shoot Zimmerman for stalking him - under the SYG law. Would you be so vocally defending the law if that would have happened? The law is an encouragement to people to escalate conflicts. It does not give them the power to defend themselves, since that is a power we all have always had, if the situation truly comes down to that.
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:07 p.m.
"Does anyone realize that SYG law never even applied in the Zimmerman case." You and I and those who pay attention realize that. Those who get their news from you-know-where don't realize it.
nekm1
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:27 p.m.
When will you learn that "facts" cloud "agenda" ??
Lake Trout
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.
I do not give a rats backside what color someones skin is or their nationality. I WILL stand my ground and protect myself and those around me if threatened. Violence is violence and every American citizen has the right to protect themself. It is the person who chooses to do violence not the gun...
Mick52
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 10:46 p.m.
Tano you are so wrong and obviously ignorant of violent behavior. The standard of duty to retreat just complicates incidents. It makes little sense that the victim should have a responsibility to try to evade than make the safest choice to avoid injury or even death. I always wondered what duty to retreat meant. Are you supposed to run away from an assailant with a gun rather than pull your own and shoot him? What if he chases you and catches you? If your wife is with you and she is in high heels and can't run as fast as you, do you have to give her up to the quick assailant? Then can you go back, or do you still have to retreat? That would put you and/or your wife at a greater disadvantage, being caught from behind. Or he could shoot you when you start to run away. I think the biggest burden including maybe being shot, should be placed on the bad guy, not the victim. It just makes no sense to me to put yourself in a worse situation, or let a villain escape to victimize others. I have never read about a robbery, armed or unarmed where the victim reported he ran away. What really sticks in my craw is people who say Mr. Zimmerman only got a few cuts on the back of his head that were minor. So, I suppose that means before you can shoot a punk doing a number on the sidewalk with your head you have to give him a few more chances to make your injury much worse before you can shoot him, i.e. stop him. Can you please tell us how many whacks on the concrete that is? Obviously based on Martin v Zimmerman it has to be more than what causes bleeding. 10? 20? At just about to pass out? When brain damage seems apparent? I might remind you of the case of the actress Natasha Richardson, who while skiing slipped and struck her head one time on ice. She had probably no cuts that required a band aid, but died several hours later of injuries, caused by the striking of her head. AABro, self defense has always been one of the primary defenses in home or not.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:20 p.m.
You should be sued if you use excessive force. What is wrong with that standard? You should use only such force as is necessary to protect yourself. And of then that means no force at all. It is madness to give fearful people a blank check to use whatever force they wish to, with no sense of responsibility. Especially since that may entail killing (and thus silencing) the other side of the story.
AnnArBo
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:07 p.m.
You are wrong Tano, before STG laws, if you were off your property, you could be sued for using excessive force if you defended yourself. Self defense laws always revolved around being on your own property "in your own castle" defense. STG laws protect you when you defend yourself anywhere you have the legal right to be, and you must STILL PROVE you were in imminent danger from assault or you can be charged criminally. You cannot just hunt someone down and claim self defense.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:47 p.m.
The issue is not whether you can protect yourself. You always can. The question is whether you have an obligation to avoid a violent conflict IF POSSIBLE. If not possible, then of course you have the right to defend yourself. It has always been so. But if you it is possible to avoid the violent conflict, then you have a responsibility to try. Except under this new, idiotic law.
jcj
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.
There is NOT a law in the country that will lessen the number of blacks killed in Chicago or any other major city in the country. But not a word about that! Concentrate on one unfortunate shooting that BOTH men could have avoided.
AnnArBo
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.
I was surprised to learn last night that the student who was beaten practically to death by three black kids on the school bus was white, yet no mention by the mainstream media, and no condemnation from black leaders on this brutal behavior. Apparently the victim did the right thing by simply curling up in a ball and taking the beating, rather then defending himself, which surly then would have become a race issue......... If the races of the parties had been reversed? I wonder what the media would be talking about all month.............
Arborcomment
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 11:58 p.m.
@jamie, apparently the comment you were referencing was deleted? In any event, making an excuse for the lack of a Jackson comment ("he's in Morocco") does not seem to square with with your position of not pointing to a figurehead" - why make excuses for him? Still encourage you to read Williams op-ed - you will find he makes a valid point on figureheads (the Jackson/Sharpton version) - right along the lines of your comment. Of course, that is if you really meant it..l
Jaime Magiera
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:05 a.m.
Juan Williams? Hah. No thanks. Why does Jackson or Sharpton need to weigh in? or Williams for that matter? They don't speak for me or anyone but themselves. Pointing to a figurehead as somehow making a point of view invalid doesn't really make any sense. You (theoretically) think for yourself, as do I. I don't need Jackson, Sharpton or Williams to speak for me. I know right from wrong.
Arborcomment
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:51 a.m.
@jaime as there are no corporations to extort, I doubt Jackson will weigh in. Heard anything from Sharpton on this? For grins, you should check out Juan Williams op-ed on both. Then get back to us.
Jaime Magiera
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:16 a.m.
Jackson is currently in Morocco. He's not been able to respond to much of anything the past few days. Everyone here is parroting the Allen West "Where is Jesse Jackson?" nonsense - because Faux News told them so.
Jay Thomas
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:12 a.m.
@mgoscottie: There are more black on white crimes than the other way around. Come to think of it... more black on Hispanic, black on Asian, black on Arab, as well. So how is it that this one group has made themselves out to be the primary victim of contemporary society when it is in fact the primary victimizer? Every crime is a civil rights violation by the way. @Mick52: Zimmerman voted for Obama twice. When Obama personalized the case he learned the hard way that was a mistake.
Mick52
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 10:23 p.m.
How do you know they didn't Scottie? Maybe they did? What difference does it make? There is more evidence George Zimmerman is not a racist than the opposite. Race should have never entered the Zimmerman/Martin incident.
mgoscottie
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:23 p.m.
While that is sad, no one in their right mind can compare black on white with white on black. It is completely different. If there were no history and no systemic racism it would change things. Do you think the kids beat him because he was white? What was the prompt if so? Whites are wealthy? Whites are racist?
Jon Wax
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:30 p.m.
ohhhhhhhhh i tried. i was on that day 1. huffpost tried to mess with me on it, i let em have it, my comment went through and you shoulda seen the support i got for that one. they CLOBBERED that kid. broke his arm and robbed him. NADA. not a single drop of it in the news. the edited the video so you couldn't see the vicitim but of course it was the victims fault: he should have run, right? Peace Wax
G. Orwell
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
George Zimmerman had every right to defend himself from bodily harm and death and that is what the jury found. Stand your ground law worked and it is necessary. What do these people have against law abiding citizens having the ability to defend themselves from dangerous people?
Tyler Cruse
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 9:34 p.m.
The only part of Travvon's background that would be generally part of the trial is the part that Zimmerman knew at the time of the event. Zimmerman knew the following: 1)the person was unknown and acting in a suspicious way. (as reported to 911) 2) Trayvon attacked Zimmerman by hitting him without warning 3) Trayvon did not react like a reasonable person when Zimmerman was yelling for help and for Trayvon to stop trying to kill him. 4) Trayvon would not have been taken for a minor based on his appearance. Now, outside the trial we also know that Trayvon had purchased materials to make a street drug "LEAN" and had other illegal drugs in his blood. We know that he bragged about being a fighter and started fights for the sport of it. We know he made some nasty racial slurs about Zimmerman that night to his girlfriend. We know he had 4 min to leave the area or to call 911 that in stead he sought out Zimmerman for a fight. We know he had some serious problems in the school that he was suspended from. Since Trayvon was under the influence, he was in fact could not have used SYG from the beginning (in the act of committing a crime)
Jack
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 4:05 a.m.
@Gramma and Tano - Yes, Travon Martin was the innocent person at the beginning of the encounter. However, the only evidence that existed - eye witness reports consistent with Zimmerman's story, injuries to the back of Zimmermans head and a broken nose, all back of Zimmerman's story. There was no other evidence. So thinking of Martin as being entirely innocent indicates a mind set, not a factual set.
G. Orwell
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:19 a.m.
Jury of his peers ruled INNOCENT! Based on the over whelming evidence, it was a no brainer. Even school children would have come to the same conclusion. I take that back. Unless they are from Ann Arbor.
Jaime Magiera
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 2:09 a.m.
Actually, the police couldn't determine who did what first. At any rate, Zimmerman followed Martin against the tenants of Neighborhood Watch (which were made clear to him) and against the dispatcher (who *does* have authority). If he don't taken wrong steps to start, things wouldn't have escalated.
Jay Thomas
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:23 a.m.
SYG was not the defense used in the case (though it does render Zimmerman immune from monetary damages). What people here are overlooking is that the police investigated and found no evidence to suggest Zimmerman attacked Martin until the single fatal gunshot. Therefore Zimmerman's wounds were inflicted by martin first. When the police and coroner testify on your behalf it is very difficult to convict someone. But then this was a show trial that should never have happened. @Gramma: Google "lean". That's what Trayvon's friend said he was making with the watermelon iced tea and candy.
Jaime Magiera
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:07 a.m.
Angry Moderate, you mean actions like assaulting an officer? Disorderly conduct while drunk? Or someone's estranged wife taking out a restraining order?
Mick52
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 10:20 p.m.
The attitudes of people who think the jury ruled incorrectly is scary. Apparently, despite what all the evidence showed, many people think Zimmerman should have been convicted. This reminds me of the corrupt trials against people during the civil rights trials of the 50s and 60s where stacked juries acquitted murderers. Apparently it is okay to maintain that thinking as long as it is flipped around. That trial is perhaps the perfect example of how a person's guilt has to be weighed by the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," which means if the jury has any reasonable doubt they must acquit. You just cannot throw out that requirement whenever you want to based on age of either party, their size or decision they made right or wrong. Really it is scary how many people think.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 7:33 p.m.
"there was no initial attack by Zimmerman." You have absolutely no way of knowing that. We do know that Martin was simply walking home from the store, and left to his own preferences, that is what would have happened. It is obvious that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. We don't know who threw the first punch. The only other witness, besides Zimmerman, isn't able to testify. Does that mean we are obliged to believe anything Zimmerman says?
John
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4 p.m.
"bashing", "pounding", "smashing"...all adjectives used by the right to describe Zimmerman's injuries to his head. However, they were so NOT severe, he didn't require any medical attention. I've gotten more injuries just falling off my bike. Zimmerman was losing a fist fight and shot an unarmed kid in cold blood.
Angry Moderate
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:50 p.m.
You mean like bashing someone's head against the sidewalk? Notice how Trayvon's only injuries were bruises on his knuckles (from punching) and a gunshot wound. Meaning, he punched, and then got shot--there was no initial attack by Zimmerman.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:16 p.m.
Sure. He was walking home, bothering no one. I.e. innocent. Now he is dead. None of us are absolutely innocent, in the sense that we have never done anything wrong in our lives. Does that mean we should all be killed at random moments, even when we are doing nothing wrong?
Angry Moderate
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:43 p.m.
Would you all like to explain how a self-styled "gangster" who was in a fight club, punched a bus driver in the face for no reason, stole women's jewelry, and had a photo of himself holding an illegal gun on his phone, as well as text messages attempting to purchase another illegal gun was "innocent"?
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.
Nobody has any objection to innocent people defending themselves against dangerous people. The problem that you fail to grasp in this case is that Trayvon Martin was the innocent party, and George Zimmerman the dangerous one. An innocent child has been killed, and you think that indicates that the law worked and is necessary???
Gramma
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:13 p.m.
Trayvan Martin was not a dangerous person. He was an innocent teenager walking through his own neighborhood to go home after buying candy and a pop.
glimmertwin
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:29 p.m.
This coming from the same group that thinks vehicles will stop for pedestrians that step out in the road with no signals. How's that working out?
jcj
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:23 p.m.
The unwillingness to pass a resolution condemning the high percentage of deaths in major cities across the country that have NOTHING to do with stand your ground tells what these numbskulls are all about!
AnnArBo
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:14 p.m.
Ah yes, the notion that being a victim is somehow nobler than defending yourself. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms.....only disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes..........Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson
Jack
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 4:01 a.m.
@Tano - There have been many people who have gone to prison for trying to defend themselves with a weapon prior to this law. They were not bloodied enough, did not have enough proof of a struggle, so off they went to serve a term. It did not matter than an invader was in their home. As you may know, a 70 something woman recently went to prison to shooting her grandson (too many times) of whom she was terrified and about whom she had called the police on previous occasions. And this is with the SYG law. So please stop trying to mislead people.
Ricebrnr
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 5:10 p.m.
OK Jaime, following that last bit of logic... When the dispatcher constantly requests updates on what the suspicious person is doing, that's not also an implicit order TO FOLLOW in order to provide those updates then? You can't have it both ways as you would know if you had actually followed the trial or looked into it at all.
Jaime Magiera
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:04 a.m.
Wehrwolf, not following is one of the foundational rules of the Neighborhood Watch. I know this is true because a family member of mine was Neighborhood Watch in Detroit. At the Zimmerman trial, the police liaison pointed out that she specifically told Zimmerman that they were not to follow people. It's quite obvious really, for reasons outlined by Tano above. Also, note that a dispatcher *is* a representative of the police and you are supposed to do what they tell you.
Wehrwolf
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 9:18 p.m.
Since when is an order from a 911 dispatcher a lawful order that is punishable by law if disobeyed? They are not on-duty law enforcement and don't have the same authority as a police officer on scene ordering you to stop. Even if they did, would you even WANT that? A dispatcher can only hear what is happening; they cannot see what is going on, and are unable to fully assess a caller's situation. Do you really want them giving legally binding orders over the phone when they have so little information to go on? Use your brains, people.
Angry Moderate
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
The 911 dispatcher did NOT tell him not to follow. You obviously didn't even watch the trial. And even if they had, a dispatcher has no power to order people around.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:13 p.m.
Of course you can hunt down someone and claim self-defense. The other guy is dead now, so it is only your story. If Trayvon had been armed, and a bit older, he could have easily claimed to have legitimate fear of some guy following him around at night. If Zimmerman had then approached him, could Trayvon have shot and killed him? From that point forward we would have only heard Trayvon's side of the story, and given the 911 tapes with the dispatcher telling Zim not to follow, but he did, it would have been a slamdunk in favor of Trayvon. That is the problem here. This law encourages people to act aggressively on their fears, even though it may often be the case that the fears are overblown, and that violence is not a necessary solution to the situation. A law which works to increase the occurence of violence in our society is highly counterproductive. Anyone who legitimately uses force to defend themselves is acting within their rights. But they should have the burden to demonstrate that their use of lethal force was justified. You think the burden should be on the dead person to prove that they were innocent, that they posed no real threat? That their death was unjustified?
AnnArBo
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:03 p.m.
Tano, you are the one who is wrong. Self defense laws have existed mainly when you are confronted in your home or on your own property, outside your home before stand your ground laws, victims were open to civil suits claiming excessive force if they defended themselves with deadly force. SYG laws shifted this burden of proving self defense to the victims point of view, and protects someone outside there home if they feel they are being threatened with deadly or serious bodily harm. Violence can happen so fast, and be so deadly, that you should not have to think run or duck BEFORE you defend yourself, and you should not be criminally liable if you are defending yourself against aggression. YOU STILL have to prove you are in imminent danger and can be criminally charged if you are not......., you can't simply hunt down someone and claim self defense.
sayzme
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.
Lies and misinformation, the tools of ALEC and the NRA.
Smiley
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.
Gramma - There is no confusion at all. You are taking a fluke situation that occurred in an small Florida town and hoping and pretending that it is representative of a national epidemic, which it is not. If you want to see a real national epidemic, look at the murders occurring in places like Flint and Chicago, among many others.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.
@AnnArBo Once again, you are blatantly mischaracterizing this situation and the law. All people have ALWAYS had an ABSOLUTE right to defend themselves. That is NOT some gift that "stand your ground" laws have granted people. The issue is what you are required to do BEFORE you become a victim - a requirement to attempt to deescalate the situation, most often by simply retreating from it - so that you don't become a victim or don't engage in a conflict that is avoidable. If the you cannot retreat or avoid the conflict you are ALWAYS in your rights to defend yourself. The new laws simply remove the requirement to try to avoid the conflict. Stop lying about this.
Gramma
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:11 p.m.
It appears that the right to bear arms is being confused with the right to stalk and kill innocent persons.
Smiley
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:47 p.m.
A colleague of mine said it well: The law should not require that you actually have to die or experience serious bodily injury to prove self-defense.
msrock1954
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:09 p.m.
Such a typical reaction from The People's Republic of A2! Only in A2 would you hear that a country that is BROKE should pony up and save all our financially doomed cities:-) What world are you living in? And how is the victim supposed to retreat when he's pinned down and having his head rearranged on the concrete!
Anthony
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 6:15 p.m.
More like a typical reaction from astroturfing republicans on a2.com
dsponini
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:07 p.m.
"rearranged", at least you didn't say bashing, pounding, smashing...
Jaime Magiera
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:56 a.m.
I applaud Ann Arbor City Council for taking a stand. Hopefully, this will resonate across the state.
Jack
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 3:53 a.m.
@BobLowson - Can't say that I agree with the Tea Party on most things, but, just to set you straight, canvasses of the Tea Party show their members to be quite a bit better educated than the general public. Sorry that your stereotype doesn't go the way you wished.
DJBudSonic
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 5:22 a.m.
@jaime I am all for social justice, but this Resolution was ill-formed, and basically a type of political grandstanding. If the city council wanted to do something to advance the cause of social justice, they would spend more time finding ways to invest in causes for the social good. Adequate amounts of decent affordable housing, reliable local public transportation, lower costs of living, good public schools, food security. It's been shown that for each dollar spent on social services like these society gets back more than a dollar. Giving tax breaks to big businesses to move downtown? Maintaining slush funds for downtown development and public art? Building parking structures ? These things return less than a dollar for every dollar spent. And do nothing for the cause of social justice.
Jaime Magiera
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:58 p.m.
nekm1, why would anyone walk around with bills hanging out of their pocket? Jon Wax, I go out after dark all the time. Your comment is completely erroneous. Bobslowson, perhaps, but I'm going to do everything possible to help the message along.
Mick52
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 10:12 p.m.
It will resonate all right. With a loud "NO."
Brad
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 6:33 p.m.
Laughter resonates as much as anything else I guess.
bobslowson
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:45 p.m.
Don't count on it Jaime. We're stuck with a bunch of barely graduated high school ignorant tea party members in Lansing
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:05 p.m.
Believe me, Ann Arbor's actions do resonate across the state. Thanks to things like this, the rest of the state thinks we're totally insane. They point at us and laugh, and with good reason. I'm sick of City Council embarrassing us.
Jon Wax
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:28 p.m.
all the folks against this law are the same ones who don't go out after dark. they have already given up the ground to the thugs and now they want to force us to do the same? might need to get some folks outta office after this one. Peace Wax
nekm1
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:24 p.m.
Hey Jaime, go spend a night on the South Side of Chicago with dollar bills hanging out of your pocket. See how that works out.
BigMike
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:51 a.m.
Ann Arbor City Council considering a resolution that outside its purview, based upon a law that doesn't do what they claim it does, brought to their attention by a case that's not about the law in question.
balls104
Tue, Aug 13, 2013 : 6:37 a.m.
Are you surprised BigMike?
eone
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 7:29 p.m.
Ann Arbor 27 square miles surrounded by reality ! stand your ground people it's not a issue of race.
mgoscottie
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:50 a.m.
Comment summary right here: white people declare race to no longer exist, two black people agree, whites say "see, told you"
mgoscottie
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:16 p.m.
Wow, did you actually just say that?
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
Sorry, mgoscottie, but appeals to white guilt is no longer allowed as of November 4, 2008.
bobslowson
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:52 p.m.
Yep SCOTUS already declared that racism in America is over! Anyone that actually believes that lives in a bubble, which is not surprising coming from the gun crowd
nekm1
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:22 p.m.
Let it go....heck there is racism in Mexico with the 6 different classes of citizens (Mexican citizens)...understand this law is not about skin color, but a persons right to defend his or herself.
Technojunkie
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:37 a.m.
I'd like the omniscient city council to explain how Stand Your Ground applies when the victim (Zimmerman) is pinned to the ground and getting his head smashed against concrete? When I see a simple case of self-defense elevated to a national jihad against self-defense and firearms in general, to the point of inventing the term "white Hispanic" after it's realized that the assault victim wasn't a plain old white guy like me, I get worried. When I see people who should be smart enough to know better joining this jihad with enthusiasm it terrifies me. If the ruling class has their way I'll be completely dependent on government for my security. No way. History makes it abundantly clear why that's suicidal.
Jack
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 3:49 a.m.
@Tano - I was going to let this slide, but find I can't. Zimmerman was not a 200 pound man at the time of the incident. He was actually quite slim. With effort, he had lost a lot of weight. The media, wanting the public to believe he was biggier than Martin, kept showing the picture of Zimmerman when he had a lot of weight on him. LIkewise they kept showing Martin when he was 13 years old, not the guy he was at 17. Zimmerman was smaller than Martin and much less athletic.
Jay Thomas
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 12:49 a.m.
@John: George Zimmerman specifically asked for medical care. The police talked him out of it and continued to interrogate him for hours. Where are all the civil rights boosters in this case...
Mick52
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 10:10 p.m.
Yeah, John and Tano, maybe he didn't need medical attention for the injuries from Martin's assault, but had he not stop him, he may have. Also you might read up on actress Natasha Richardson, who also did not need medical attention for her head injury, the one that killed her hours later. Head injuries can be deadly and if someone is smacking you in the head it has to be stopped ASAP. And whether or not he put himself in that situation, he did not deserve being beaten.
John
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.
"If that's the case, them combining them makes no sense." Race, Ethnicity, Nationality. Learn the difference between these terms, then you will understand.
smb
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:54 p.m.
Right, Tano. I guess GZ should have let TM beat him unconscious THEN he would have been justified in defending himself.
Angry Moderate
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:46 p.m.
I like how you're still ignoring the broken nose...sad how liberals have to twist the facts to fit the narratives spoofed to them by the media. P.S. - there doesn't have to be ANY injury to use self defense, merely a reasonable fear of such injury. If someone pulls a gun on you, you are welcome to shoot them first even though you have no injuries.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:03 p.m.
Yes, a "bloody gash". Of the type that one gets from scraping their skin against concrete. That does not justify killing someone.
Angry Moderate
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:41 p.m.
Tano, Wheaton earth are you talking about? He had a bloody gash on his head, which you can see in the photos, as well as a broken nose. There is no requirement to allow a thug to beat you half to death before defending yourself.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.
@ Technojunkie There was no concussion, no skull fracture. Only two little lacerations treated with band-aids. The lawyers put on a nice show at the trial bashing a 10 pound foam dummy into the floor, but Zimmerman is a 200lb+ man actively resisting, one would imagine. It is highly doubtful that his life was in any danger whatsoever. And of course, he put himself into that situation... So no, it was not a simple case of self-defense, although obviously Zim and his lawyers had a huge interest in making that argument.
Gramma
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:07 p.m.
The census asks people who identify as Hispanic or Latino to state whether they are white or black.
Usual Suspect
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
"Hispanic is an ethnic designation, White is a racial one." If that's the case, them combining them makes no sense.
John
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:15 p.m.
"White Hispanic" is not an invented term. There are many people who self-identify as ethnically Hispanic and racially White. The key thing to remember is that race and ethnicity are two different things. Hispanic is an ethnic designation, White is a racial one.
John
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:31 p.m.
You mean his head smashed so hard that didn't even require medical attention?
SonnyDog09
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:24 a.m.
In the Glorious People's Democratic Republic of Ann Arbor, comrade citizens are required to run away real fast. Those who cannot run away fast enough to escape are doomed.
balls104
Tue, Aug 13, 2013 : 6:36 a.m.
Wrong Tano, the law was set up so that people do not have to jump through the hoop of trying to retreat before defending themselves. Things happen fast in a life and death situation. Too fast to have to second guess, "gee did I try to retreat???" You must act with a purpose, yesterday. There is nothing wrong with SYG or Castle laws, what is wrong is that there are members of society too willing to give a pass to agressive criminals. They should not be given the opportunity to advance, while we are forced, by law to retreat. THAT is against common sense, and THAT is the problem.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.
This is absolute nonsense. People have ALWAYS had the right to defend themselves if their life is in real danger. The SYG laws ratchet things up so that people have a right to violently confront people based merely on their fears, not any objective measure of real danger.
dconkey
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:22 a.m.
Yes, gun violence is the leading cause of deaths of black teens, and if the council members would look at the stats, the leading cause is other black men. I don't know this for a fact, but I am going to guess that most of those guns used in those deaths are not legal. And really, having the federal government spent a TRILLION dollars on inner cities?! Where is the money going to come from?
motorcycleminer
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:14 a.m.
Only in Oz would the chicken little's pass a resolution against the sky falling.....ignorance is bliss
motorcycleminer
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 8:06 p.m.
Typical liberal response ..throw BS ....
Basic Bob
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 10:41 a.m.
Ann Arbor City Council needs to repeal the Pedestrian Stand Your Ground Ordinance. It also leads to unnecessary deaths.
balls104
Tue, Aug 13, 2013 : 6:28 a.m.
Nah, I liked it.
DJBudSonic
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 5:26 a.m.
Too soon.
reddog801
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 10:28 a.m.
The State of Michigan's "Stand your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" have absolutely nothing to do with Race. To think otherwise is completely ludicrious. The Ann Arbor Council has no business worrying about State law and has more work that can be done at the local level than to worry about this. The Main Stream Media(Lame Stream) put on a show for all of America to see because they wanted a race war. It backfired on them. Stand your ground is a law because nobody should ever have to retreat in fear if they are attacked or if bodily harm is being seeked out against them. The mere idea that one can use a gun is ate up by liberals everywhere and Ann Arbor is no exception. Liberals or the democratic base are scared to death that a person can arm themselves and use a gun during an attack. Quite simply put, if you don't want to pay the consequences, don't do the crime. A reminder that our law of the land the US CONSTITUTION says that the 2nd Amendment and the right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! STOP INFRINGING upon the rights of people that choose to carry out this right everyday.
Steve Bean
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 11:54 p.m.
"The problem is that you seem to want to impose your submissive values on everyone else." Bugmenot, you said that, I didn't. I spoke for myself only. Nice try though.
bugmenot
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 : 2:20 a.m.
Steve Bean says: "I do think it's smarter and more loving to myself to 'retreat in fear' (to once again reference reddog801's words) than to kill someone." The law permits you to retreat if you so desire. Nothing in the law prevents you from falling on your knees and begging for mercy in an encounter with a violent criminal. The problem is that you seem to want to impose your submissive values on everyone else.
Steve Bean
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 : 11:47 a.m.
AnnArBo, those are your words, not mine. I was referring to reddog801's words (as I quoted). I don't believe in nobility. I do think it's smarter and more loving to myself to "retreat in fear" (to once again reference reddog801's words) than to kill someone.
shutthefrtdoor
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:55 p.m.
@Tano...please read the law before you make statements that don't apply in Michigan. Our Castle Doctrine is NOT a blanket law to kill and maim! It simply removes the very dangerous "duty to retreat" caveat and prohibits criminals from suing the victim. If Michiganders want to be complacent sheep-victims; that is their choice. Personally, I cherish my life, my family and the safety of others. I have too much to live for not to take out a perp if necessary. And before we explore the "Con" route...I am a registered Democrat. We lose A TON of seats on the hill and elsewhere from the "be a victim and relinquish your firearms" philosophy.
Tano
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:18 p.m.
@AnnArBo It is not about being a victim. One ALWAYS has the right to defend oneself and to prevent oneself from being a victim. The issue is whether one should have an absolute right to escalate conflicts - never an obligation to de-escalate the conflict - IF POSSIBLE.
sesomai
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 1:23 p.m.
The law itself may have nothing to do with race, but it is possible that people's interpretation of it is influenced by race.
AnnArBo
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:37 p.m.
Steve, is it somehow nobler to be a victim, rather than defending yourself? If you are attacked, is it nobler to accept the fear and take a beating or possibly lose your own life rather than defend yourself?
Steve Bean
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:20 p.m.
"Stand your ground is a law because nobody should ever have to retreat in fear if they are attacked or if bodily harm is being seeked out against them." You'd rather kill than feel and acknowledge your own fear. You're afraid of fear. Do you realize that?
mgoscottie
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:57 a.m.
You have a dangerous lack of regard for human life, i am 100 percent fine with guns, I want people to have guns. But read your comment again and try not to be so dismissive of life. That will be someone's kid you kill.
Arboriginal
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 11:44 a.m.
Or, if you want to murder somebody, use "Stand Your Ground" as your defense. Your gun rights are already controlled by the government. You know this of course.
Halter
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 10:18 a.m.
Ann Arbor City Council needs to stay out of this.
Smiley
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 3:27 p.m.
incubo734 - All the window dressing and propaganda aside, what is your fundamental objection to people having the right to defend themselves? The situation involving Zimmerman and Martin was very unique and hardly representative of a national epidemic that warrants the level of attention it is getting at the national level. A real national epidemic involves the murders of black youth that are occurring every day...heck, every hour. You want to talk about ignoring the facts and real issues to further one's agenda, why is no one talking about that?
incubo734
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 2:26 p.m.
Look at all the down votes from NRA supporters that don't want the truth known! alecexposed.org prwatch.org/projects/alec-exposed www.thenation.com/article/161973/ alec-exposed-koch-connection#axzz2bTxAtRV9
dsponini
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:49 p.m.
Absolutely correct incubo734 In March 2012, CMD reported that NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer helped draft the Florida law in 2005, and "stared down legislators as they voted" to pass it. Just a few months later, Hammer presented the bill to ALEC's Criminal Justice Task Force (now known as the Public Safety and Elections Task Force), and the NRA boasted that "[h]er talk was well-received." The corporations and state legislators on the Task Force -- which was chaired by Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer of long guns -- voted unanimously to approve the bill as an ALEC "model bill." Since becoming an ALEC model it has become law in dozens of other states, and the number of homicides classified as "justifiable" has dramatically increased.
incubo734
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.
Yeah, we should all obey the NRA and ALEC who wrote the majority of these laws as a way to sell more guns. The truth is scary alecexposed.org
John
Fri, Aug 9, 2013 : 10:15 a.m.
Do they think that the stand your ground law only pertaines to blacks and latino's ? What a bunch of morons