Ypsilanti City Council approves resolution asking state to repeal 'Stand Your Ground' law
Opponents of Michigan's gun laws discuss their position with Ypsilanti's City Council on Aug. 20.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
At Tuesday’s regular Ypsilanti City Council meeting, Council Member Ricky Jefferson recalled a confrontation in which he found himself “looking down a barrel of a gun" belonging to a man whose car had just been vandalized.
Jefferson said he was minding his own business and walking over to his sister’s house in Ypsilanti Township, but the man with the gun assumed Jefferson was responsible for the vandalism.
The man held Jefferson there until police came, and he was detained for several hours until it was found his finger prints didn’t match those on the car.
Jefferson said he is fully in support of residents’ right to defend themselves, but said that incident haunts him and forced him to reconsider his initial support Michigan’s stand your ground law.
Jefferson said he could have easily been shot and those pulling trigger could have claimed he was a threat.
"I'm also a person who believes in the right to protect yourself from great bodily harm if approached by someone, but since this law was passed in 2006 it must be reviewed ... because of tragic abuses," he said.
Jefferson related his story minutes prior to the Ypsilanti City Council approving a resolution asking the state legislature to repeal Michigan's Self Defense Act of 2006, which is similar to Folrida’s “stand your ground law”, and Public Act 319 of 1990.
He questioned whether someone involved in the heat of a confrontation has the ability to determine what is a true threat to one's life. And he added the law puts jurors in a tough position.
"It also gives opportunity for people who have malice in their heart," Jefferson said.
The council approved the measure by a 6-1 vote.
Council Member Lois Richardson brought the resolution to council with Jefferson.
Lois Richardson
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
She said the law is a race issue and the city needs to begin having a conversation about it.
“We have to deal with underlying racism in this city, and if we don’t it's going to keep us from being the great city we can be,” she said.
The resolution cited a Texas A&M study that found states with stand your ground laws “saw no drop in robberies, burglaries and aggravated assaults, and an increase in murders."
It also cited a study that found white-on-black shootings were more likely to be justified than black-on-white shootings.
It further reads that stand your ground laws “threaten to lead to unnecessary use of deadly force by eliminating the common law duty to retreat and break off a confrontation where that can be accomplished with reasonable safety.”
The resolution also highlighted a Tampa Bay Times review that found that of the 192 times there was a death and the stand your ground law was used to free the killer in Florida, the victim was unarmed 70 percent of the time.
Council Member Brian Robb voted against the resolution. He said he didn't like that it also called for the repeal of Public Act 319 of 1990, which prohibits local governments from imposing its own firearms restrictions.
He also questioned why the city was voting on a verbatim copy of a resolution the Ann Arbor City Council passed. He added that he was voting against the resolution for those reasons even if the vote wasn't "politically expedient."
Mayor Paul Schreiber, who is part of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, said he believes there are too many guns on the street and said Jefferson's story illustrate some of the issues with the stand your ground law.
Several residents spoke in support of the resolution.
“What we are here to do is urge you to support us as we go from one municipality to another as we seek support to repeal the stand your ground law,” said Lefiest Galimore, who was with a group of supporters mostly from Ann Arbor. They were also at a recent Ann Arbor City Council meeting where that government approved the same resolution.
“It’s a draconian law that needs to be repealed. We don’t need to lose a young person to anyone’s imagination about what could happen,” Galimore said.
Ypsilanti resident Stephen Taylor said he had been threatened before and was safer for possessing a firearm.
“I say to ‘Shame on you' for attempting to limit or eliminate my right to self-defense,” Taylor said before threatening to work to unseat any council member supporting the resolution.
Council Member Dan Vogt said he was disturbed by the lack of rationality and "negative, unintended consequences" of the Michigan Self Defense Act of 2006.
“There is a complete irrationality to changing the well-established, well-tested rule that we used to have that the stand your ground law overruled,” Vogt said. “For centuries we had legal tests that were reasonable and rational that allowed self defense for people who legitimately needed self defense.”
Comments
TK2013
Sat, Aug 24, 2013 : 1:54 p.m.
Richardson and Jefferson disgrace themselves and the city as a whole. They accomplish no meaningful change as elected legislators but RUN to every photo opportunity they can find. Shame on AA.com for continually obliging.
Ypsidoodle
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 10:59 p.m.
I'm surprised no one at the council meeting brought up the fact that Brandy's Liquor is back in business again... that's gotta account for at least 20% of crime in the city. Having been nearly assaulted several times in the past in that area, I now avoid it completely but it's just a shame it had to come to that, that I couldn't walk to a local store in my neighborhood without the very real possibility that I could get assaulted (or worse.) Would it be any different for me if I chose to exercise my rights under Michigan law? No, not for me, I'd still avoid a place like that because that's what you should do: don't go there at all or if you're being followed at all anywhere, just not turn around and confront someone who you suspect is a threat who then suspects you're a threat as well. Just hang up the phone, call 911 and get the hell out of there as quick as possible. 100% of the time I've felt threatened anywhere I ended up living in the end, a few bumps and bruises maybe but still a living person.
Honest Abe
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 8:09 p.m.
White Life Matters, too. Sure seems that if you're proud to be white - You are a racist. -I am White. -I am proud to be White. -I think there should be White colleges, just as there are Black colleges. How many White people attend Spelman College or Florida A&M? -I believe White people should marry white people. -I believe there should be a White people college fund. -I do not believe White people owe Black people, anything. Am I racist? No. Am I prejudice? No. I am White, and proud of it.
FCB1899
Fri, Aug 23, 2013 : 2:23 a.m.
This is how I feel: 1. I am Black 2. I am fine with being Black 3. I feel like you should go to any college you can afford. 4. I believe you should marry whoever makes you happy (it's no one's business but yours). 5. There's no race attached to this one; nobody owes anyone anything.
FCB1899
Fri, Aug 23, 2013 : 2:10 a.m.
Okay and there are black people who feel the same way about being black. ALL life matters not just one race in particular.
Patrick Maurer
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 3:06 p.m.
With all the violent crimes taking place in Ypsilanti, you would think the city counsel would not try to limit the citizens right to self protection. They seem to be 180 degrees out on this issue. Just say'n
OLDTIMER3
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.
Is there any records of crimes being committed by persons with a LEGALY REGUISTERED and carried weapon? I'm talking in Michigan.
Bcar
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
Mr. Jefferson, please point to the traffic abuses in MICHIGAN that this law has caused. Lets cite the study in FL where black-on-white shooting were more likely to be justified. Here's an idea, come up with way to get the guns out of criminals' hands, I'll support that one! I love how the one lady in the picture was also at the A2 council meeting, so does she live in ypsi or a2? LOL
Davidian
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.
Just as I predicted.... This is all about Trayvon Martin, race, and pandering to a constituency. It's shameful. The black community needs to take a hard look at themselves and ask tough questions and propose solutions that don't infringe on my most basic right - the right of self-preservation.
ez12c
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 12:48 p.m.
Repeal the SELF DEFENSE ACT OF 2006 and POST YOUR ADDRESS.
reddog801
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 9:59 a.m.
The City of Ypsilanti needs to back down. Do you not have anything better to do? Let's look at the facts. A african american attacked a hispanic and he died in the process because his head was being beat against the pavement. He chose to fire his weapon as he thought his life was in danger. You all need to get your heads from between your butt cheeks and stop thinking with you butts! Quite simply put the stand your ground law was enacted because good solid citizens NEED NOT FEAR ANYONE!!! We all have a right to bear arms and this tyranny that keeps coming up from these cities has to stop. If you are against guns, or agains stand your ground then you are for the criminal simply put. Deal with that. As a law abiding citizen the city has no right to tell me what I can or cannot do to protect myself. Now, get back to work and do the work of the city and stop worrying about national issues.
YpsiGirl4Ever
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 4:57 a.m.
I'm not going to reply to some of the crazy comments above. Good job Councilperson's Jefferson and Richardson for bringing this amendment to the floor.
Davidian
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.
Because you have no sound or logical argument.
Nikki Stefina
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 3:58 a.m.
Michigan is not Florida. We know the difference in protecting yourself and being a gun toting loose canon running down a kid. I think if that happened here the verdict would have been very different. But who's to say, they let a mother off who more than likely killed her own child. While another woman that killed no one sits in prison for 20 years. No, this would not happen in Michigan. Not while I am a voting, jury duty serving, citizen.
Bcar
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 3:15 p.m.
wow, so you're saying that you wouldnt follow the LAW and you'd convict Z? awesome...
Nikki Stefina
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 3:52 a.m.
I want the right to protect myself and my 5 year old daughter. I have mace and a knife. I ride the bus during the day. A woman was shot in the face at one of the bus stops that I use. It was 7pm. It's very dangerous out here.
harry b
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 5:07 p.m.
The problem is that it is illegal to carry a knife over 4 1/2". Better get a gun.
beardown
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 2:26 a.m.
A couple of stories down on the Ypsi portion of annarbor.com is the story about the city council also jacking the residents for a new tax, I mean assessment, to supposedly cover the lighting in the city, as well as funnel money to the city for three decades. While I am for getting rid of the SYG law, this vote was nothing more than a smokescreen while they raise the burden of funding the city back onto the people. I am interested to see what the next issue they will vote on symbolically will be when they next enact some unpopular legislation.
Solitude
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 3:16 p.m.
The burden of funding any city is, and always has been, on its residents. Who else would be funding it?
Jay Thomas
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 2:16 a.m.
Most crime occurs in areas represented by democrats. It's only to be expected that they would be concerned that the people relieving others of their money/valuables could be hurt in the process. After all, it could be the tax and spend politician next...
harry b
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 5:06 p.m.
As unpopular as you statement maybe it is 100% true. You can't fight facts.
Honest Abe
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:39 a.m.
Care to guide us to where the report regarding your incident can be found, Mr Ricky Jefferson? Also, Stand your ground law or not, you come into my home unauthorized - You will be greeted with a fully loaded weapon, rapidly firing at you.
Honest Abe
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:41 a.m.
By the way, Mr Jefferson, I will not lay off until I get that report. With you being a Council Member and all, if this is a fib; I will have your job.
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:36 a.m.
In the comments, we've seen allusions to false statistics about "black crime", cited from a resource that is openly racist. We've seen allusions to the Ann Arbor area becoming "like Detroit", despite statistics to the contrary. We've seen people say they will use their gun outside of the requirements of the law - willing to put innocent bystanders at risk. We've seen a lot of hyperbole about the "weakness" of trying to avoid violence. All of these things point to why there is concern about laws that allow for gun violence without clear justification. This is why people are rightly concerned about such ambiguity.
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 4:52 a.m.
Mr. Ed, I posted quotes above from the source of your "statistics". Feel free to try to argue he isn't a racist and a faulty academic. It will be enjoyable to watch.
Mr. Ed
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 2:37 a.m.
Your comments are based on what you read not fact.
metrichead
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:19 a.m.
I don't need a "Stand Your Ground" Law to defend myself. When my safety is threatened, I already have the right without the law to protect myself if I'm walking down the street and minding my own business. I could've claimed self defense before the law was enacted.
ez12c
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 12:45 p.m.
Nobody should be allowed the right to self defense if a gun is used...says Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti City Councils.
martini man
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 12:42 a.m.
Thank you Ypsi City Council..we thugs salute you!!!!!!
stihl1
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:25 p.m.
These two local city councils disgust me. They have enough issues to deal with in their own towns, they should be spending time with that instead of toting liberal party politics into city council meetings.
Linda Peck
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:20 p.m.
There are some seriously pro gun people on this forum.
harry b
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 5:05 p.m.
Not pro gun. Its more like pro life. They are for protecting their life.
Bcar
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 3:13 p.m.
THANK GOD!
matt1027
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 4:17 a.m.
Pro being able to defend myself against people who have no respect for others, their community, or themselves.
Mr. Ed
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 2:36 a.m.
jjc155 is correct.
jjc155
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:53 p.m.
Or seriously pro constitution but feel free to put ur spin on it.
Steve McKeen
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 10:21 p.m.
I wish Council would work on more important things. I'd be okay if they symbolically worked on more important things.
grye
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:29 p.m.
They want to be more like Ann Arbor's city council.
jjc155
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:23 p.m.
"The man held Jefferson there until police came, and he was detained for several hours until it was found his finger prints didn't match those on the car." lol that is either an out and out lie or an exaggeration to pander to his side of the issue. There currently is not nor has there been any LE agency in washtenaw county that has the ability to recover latent fingerprints from a scene and get them to the State to analyze them to make or not make an identification (as far as I know no washtenaw county agency has an in house fingerprint ID tech). And even IF they did, however many years ago that this allegedly occured, I highly doubt that ability would be used on a vandalized car. If you want to repeal (or pass) legislation please do it on the truth. There is more than everyone's fare share of lying and corruption in politics.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:37 p.m.
Mr. Jefferson should provide a police report proving his story or resign from city council. Lying to the public is totally unacceptable.
walker101
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 7:26 p.m.
Hard to believe this story, I'd like to read the story on this one, anyone pointing a gun being suspected of vandalizing someone's car in Ypsilanti? Give me a break, TM wasn't vandalizing anything! TM wasn't robbing anyone, TM was tying to knock someone's head in the ground with force, Zimmerman had no where to retreat and he defended himself. Unfortunately TM didn't know Z was packing, get over it he was acquitted by his peers what more do you want.
Solitude
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 7:18 p.m.
Message to Ypsi Council Members: While you are wasting time on nonsensical crap, developers are buying up large parcels of land practically under your ignorant noses. Those of us who would kind of like to see Ypsi prosper would really appreciate it if you'd try to keep your eyes on the prize. Get some professional real estate help in place. Market Water Street. Get your heads out of the dark place they appear to be in and GET TO WORK.
Solitude
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 7:13 p.m.
I wonder how many obviously ill-informed people carrying on about this state's self-defense laws were aware that, under the previous statute, Michigan residents had a legal obligation to retreat in their OWN HOMES. Und4r the previous law, if someone broke in your home, it legal onus was on you to try somehow to escape before you could defend yourself. Whose "human rights" does it make sense to be most concerned about here? Current Michigan statutes are pretty middle of the road in this regard, especially when compared to the laws in places like TX. We have had no widespread problems since our new statute was passed, and all this knee-jerk "activism" is nothing more than political pandering.
Bcar
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 3:11 p.m.
Excellent misinformation leaguebus, if they're fleeing, you are no longer in danger and cannot claim SYG or SD... wow...
leaguebus
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:41 a.m.
As long as the perp was in your house, you can defend yourself. All you have to say is that the guy told you to give up the money or he would kill you. It all changes if the bad guy sees the gun and bolts out the door. The homeowner cannot shoot the perp running away or at least until the stand your ground law went into effect.
Solitude
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 7:14 p.m.
"...the legal onus...
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 6:54 p.m.
"It also cited a study that found white-on-black shootings were more likely to be justified than black-on-white shootings" Duh. What a dumb statement. The percentage of blacks committing crimes against whites is much higher than vice versa, of course there is more white on black self defense than vice versa.
Mr. Ed
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 9:12 a.m.
Sounds like he made some valid points. He has raised some more questions for me to explore.
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 4:49 a.m.
Lets not forget when he wanted to speak at Michigan State about how "multiculturalism is destroying western civilization" (it was cancelled) http://tinyurl.com/m9y9p8u
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 4:37 a.m.
Instead of using his carefully crafted bio, here are real quotes from him... "Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears." — American Renaissance, 2005 "Our rulers and media executives will try to turn the story of Hurricane Katrina into yet another morality tale of downtrodden blacks and heartless whites... . [But m]any whites will realize — some for the first time — that we have Africa in our midst, that utterly alien Africa of road-side corpses, cruelty, and anarchy that they thought could never wash up on our shores." — American Renaissance, 2005 "At its most basic, racial consciousness has as its goal the preservation of a certain people. Its aim is to rekindle among whites what every previous generation until recently so took for granted they did not even give it a name: an instinctive preference for their own people and culture, and a strong desire that they should prosper. I note that every other racial group acts on this healthy instinct and desire. Race realism therefore has no theory of religion, the family, art, or the role of government, except in the very general sense that it expects whites to love, first and foremost, the infinite riches created by European man." — American Renaissance website, July 3, 2008 "I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don't want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg." "Fifth, the evidence is overwhelming that there is a substantial genetic contribution to well-established racial differences in average IQ. North East Asians living in America have higher incomes, better test scores, and more education than whites because they are, on average, smarter. Whites are smarter than Hispanics, who are smarter than blacks. It is vital to recognize this because otherwise "society" (meaning whites) is blamed for the failures of blacks and Hispanics." -
Mr. Ed
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 2:35 a.m.
Here is Jareds bio. http://www.jaredtaylor.org/ Of course you would say " For people unfamiliar with New Century Foundation, they are a white-supremicist group founded by Jared Taylor. Aside from being anti-immigration, Taylor is against interracial marriage, homosexuals, the disabled and pretty much anyone who isn't healthy, white and straight." I would expect this because anytime we bring up black on white crime we must be racist.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:50 p.m.
Aahahahha, New Century Foundation? The people who actively try to limit immigration from countries with brown people? Nice. No really, please point to a scholarly research paper that backs up your claims. For people unfamiliar with New Century Foundation, they are a white-supremicist group founded by Jared Taylor. Aside from being anti-immigration, Taylor is against interracial marriage, homosexuals, the disabled and pretty much anyone who isn't healthy, white and straight.
Mr. Ed
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:58 p.m.
http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-white-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas
Mr. Ed
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:58 p.m.
From google. Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanic.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:57 p.m.
I'm simply asking you to do your own research about blatantly obvious facts that everyone already knows. I'm sure you can figure out how to use Google to find crime statistics.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:26 p.m.
You said "The percentage of blacks committing crimes against whites is much higher than vice versa, of course there is more white on black self defense than vice versa". I'm simply asking you to provide your evidence.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:54 p.m.
If you aren't aware that blacks disproportionately commit violent crime, there is no helping you. Try Google.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:42 p.m.
Angry Moderate, what is the source for your statistics?
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 6:51 p.m.
If only Ypsi residents could pass a "Get a clue and start focusing on what really matters to the community" resolution.
jjc155
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 2:06 a.m.
"In other words, the regulations themselves are fine." maybe i'm reading into that quote, but I think that crux of the matter is not that you disagree with stand your ground etc, per se, but that you feel guns ingeneral are the problem (not the people that use them in an illegal fashion)? Outlaw them and all the problems go away? Ie, if there were not guns coming from surrounding areas of chicago, DC etel than somehow there would be less crime? Just trying to figure out what you "stand" for.
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:31 a.m.
Who said it was working? It's *not* working because of outside guns coming in. That's the point.
jjc155
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:17 a.m.
So the guns come from somewhere else but the rules out law carrying in public where most of the gun crime happens in those cites and u say its working? That's like Janet napalitono saying the system " worked" when the underware bombers bomb FAILED to explode ( she actually said that in a press conference) Lolololol. Forget the fact that he got on the plane with the bomb and was able to start its initiation process but it failed to blow up. Lol. Not to much difference in her or your reasoning.
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 12:04 a.m.
If you read studies on where the guns come from in those cities, it's from neighboring areas. In other words, the regulations themselves are fine. We just need to expand the scope to neighboring cities. http://tinyurl.com/b86nlqc. Also, it's not usurping the Constitution. The regulations are related to carrying in public places (vs. in the home). You might want to actually read up on them.
jjc155
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:57 p.m.
So u r ok with a city usurping the constitution and enacting gun control on their own? Seems to work well in Chicago and Washington, D.C. Lol.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:50 p.m.
Part of the resolution deals with the ability of city governments to write their own firearm restrictions. That is certainly relevant to the city. ("it also called for the repeal of Public Act 319 of 1990, which prohibits local governments from imposing its own firearms restrictions.")
grye
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:46 p.m.
How in world does Lois Richardson relate a law that allows a vicitim to protect themselves with a race issue? The only conclusion I can draw is most anything would be race related.
Solitude
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 3:07 p.m.
Grye, everything is a "race issue" with Lois Richardson, a well-established fact that is amply illustrated by a brief review of her career on the Ypsi city council.
grye
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 12:55 a.m.
How would you right a law to remove all possibility of bias? It would be impossible. Individuals follow or ignore laws. Bias would need to be removed from each person. Stand your ground in Michigan is a well written law. Idiots who point guns at people or hold them for unfounded crimes are violating other laws. Stand your ground has nothing to do with these situations. And if someone is attacked and the attacker is shot by the victim, then hopefully the attacker might think twice before violating the law again, regardless of their ethnic background.
grye
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 12:47 a.m.
Jaime, there is no bias. If your life is threatened, you have the right to take action. This is not a race issue. Regardless of the ethnic background of the attacker, the vicitim has the right to defend themselves. What is so hard to understand with this simple fact? However, if you take action when your life is not threatened, then you are in violation of the law. That should be simple enough to understand.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:33 p.m.
You seem to be missing the point that such poorly written weapons laws allow for ambiguity that allow for such bias to have deadly consequences - which we can do without in our society.
grye
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:27 p.m.
Based upon Jaime's reasoning, laws against insider stock trading would be racist because mostly white people are committing this crime. This rule of thumb can make any law racist.
Joe
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 10:56 p.m.
Oh, it's because she can read. That's why she calls it a race issue. Because she's a literate person who chooses to inform herself before making policy decisions.
grye
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 10:49 p.m.
The law in and of itself is not racist. The individual that uses the law because someone is black is racist (or has other issues). Laws are racist when they identify or exclude someone based on race. An example would be a $100 fine for white people if they are caught speeding while the fine for a black person would be $1. That would be racist. However if a police officer has a tendency to only pull over black people and give them speeding tickets; that would be a racist officer enforcing the law, not a racist law. If you can't see the difference, you have bigger problems.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:41 p.m.
It's a race issue based on... research which shows that african americans are treated differently in terms of punishment for, and being victims of, violence. Please see the research papers cited in the article. They are available online.
grye
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:36 p.m.
So the alternative to this law would be the "roll over and cry uncle" law and hope your assailant doesn't kill you.
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 4:03 p.m.
I liked your comment Nikki, not because I support how you've related it to the article here, but because that was a silly bit of information for the The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (not California) to put out.
Nikki Stefina
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 4:06 a.m.
maybe if we pee on ourselves they will leave us alone...(Quoting an anti-rape pamphlet given out at a California College)
packman
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:36 p.m.
"The man held Jefferson there until police came, and he was detained for several hours until it was found his finger prints didn't match those on the car." I doubt very much if the police have the capability to analyze fingerprints in such a short time. This story smells...my BS detector is starting to flash.
Zhuk
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 6:52 p.m.
Yeah, the cops who show up on a call for car vandalism don't "take finger prints" and magically run them through AFIS. They can run you though the lean database and have access to the back end of OTIS etc.
aPhoenixHour
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:12 p.m.
Also, with the way that Ann Arbor is devoloping and FAST (espically compared to Ypsilanti) it's going to turn into another Detroit "and surrounding areas"
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 3:59 p.m.
OLDTIMER3, you would have to show a causation (not correlation) between the two. In other words, you'd have to provide statistics that show how many murders were stopped by someone brandishing a permitted concealed weapon in Washtenaw County and then do the math with the total number of murders here. Perhaps Kyle or one of the other AnnArbor.com journalists could dig that up. I'd be willing to run the numbers with you if we can find them.
OLDTIMER3
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.
@Jaime, Perhaps that is because there are more people legaly carrying in Washtenaw county than ever before.
jjc155
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:59 p.m.
Apheonix. What do u suggest? Just curious.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:14 p.m.
Do the math, adjusting for population. 700,000/20,000 = 35. Total number of murders in Detroit last year was 209. Ann Arbor would have to have 6 murders a year to compete. There was one murder in 2012. There were no murders in 2011. Overall, crime in the city has decreased for the past decade (http://tinyurl.com/mubmhx2). The claim is ridiculous.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:52 p.m.
Jaime, the population of Detroit is 700,000. The population of Ypsi is 20,000. Comparing the raw number of murders is silly.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:39 p.m.
Detroit has several murders a week. We have several every couple years. Please stop.
aPhoenixHour
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:20 p.m.
I would also like to state that Ypsilanti is in desperate need of a better police system
Mick52
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:04 p.m.
Okay, I like to be specific and use examples and facts when I comment on stories as much as I can. So I looked up Michigan's Stand Your Ground law and my comment is, there is no reason whatsoever to change or drop it. I am quite surprised at the language which does not allow one to just fire away. You must be able to articulate that you honestly and reasonably believe you acted to prevent serious injury or death or sexual assault. This pretty much the same as a typical self defense standard. Also I would add that turning and running is not always a good idea, that could put you in a more dangerous position. This is pretty much the same thing firearms instructors have always told people about shooting someone. You better be able to verbalize why you believed you are in serious jeopardy. The farther away a person you shoot can indicate how threatened you are. For example if you think someone is about to break into your house and shoot someone outside, you are going to have a hard time explaining that one. We will not know what standards will be until a few cases come up. Also regardless of how the criminal reviews go, you can also expect civil liability too, and I do not see this law protecting anyone civilly from a victim or victim's family trying to show your belief was dishonest and unreasonable.
harry b
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 5:04 p.m.
Jamie We do know that Zimmerman skulls was being cracked open by the cuts and blood on his head.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:32 p.m.
Angry Moderate, actually the research being discussed points to white-on-black violence being justified more than the other under such laws - which, factoring in your claim, makes the situation more dire. Again, read up on that research as well as that pointing to blacks getting sentenced more often, and for longer periods of time, than non-blacks.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:54 p.m.
"Alternately, you could read up on all the research which shows a disparity in violence and punishment against the black population vs. other populations. It's well-documented. Everything from weapons to drugs - the black community gets the short end of the stick." LOL - yes, black people are more often victims of violence...and the vast majority of it is committed by other black people.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:24 p.m.
I disagree Billy. The possibility that you might have mistaken someone for a criminal and been wrong (see above) and the possibility of hurting innocent bystanders trumps ego. Not attempting to diffuse/avoid a situation is putting others at risk. Avoiding conflict is the sign of a civilized population. As I've noted previously in other articles: it's not weakness to avoid conflict, use discretion and avoid playing into the escalation of violence in our society. It's courage.
Billy
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:05 p.m.
"There should be a burden of proof that the person shooting was not able to escape the situation." That is completely wrong. You should not have to retreat...ever. That is wrong. The law should not require cowardice. Self-defense is self-defense. If one is attacked they have EVERY right to defend themselves. It's almost nauseating that this discussion even needs to be had....so many people are willing to put themselves and others at risk by being cowards...and yes, trying to "avoid conflict" is 100% being a coward...
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:05 p.m.
We don't know that someone's skull was getting cracked open. We do know that Zimmerman followed Martin when he shouldn't have and that Martin may well have been attempting to run back to his dad's partner's house. Hence the need for someone to prove that they couldn't escape. In fact, it works both ways. If Martin didn't feel he could make it back to where he was staying, he may have been defending himself. In which case, an improved law would have justified his actions. At any rate, we could go back and forth about the Martin trial. Alternately, you could read up on all the research which shows a disparity in violence and punishment against the black population vs. other populations. It's well-documented. Everything from weapons to drugs - the black community gets the short end of the stick.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:49 p.m.
Jaime, try reading the law again. You missed the part where the victim must REASONABLY feel threatened. E.g., if someone is repeatedly cracking your skull against the sidewalk, it is reasonable to feel threatened, and you may shoot them.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:38 p.m.
I've looked at the law many times. The problem is that it does not require an attempt to get away from the situation. In fact, it says the opposite. There should be a burden of proof that the person shooting was not able to escape the situation. (Please, spare me any "...but I have a right to stand up to criminals in a free country" nonsense) The reason for this is simple: anyone can claim they felt threatened and shoot another person.
Billy
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:30 p.m.
Well sir...you're doing a lot more than most people who have already passed judgement in this case. You took the time to actually look up the law in question, something I bet most if not ALL of the council members never even did...they probably read some little blurb about it, or read someones paraphrased version of the law...and they considered that to be enough. If you shoot someone outside your house, trying to break into your house, you better hope there is evidence of them trying to break in...cause if not, a charge of 2nd degree murder will be forthcoming. Just think....if we were in Texas....you can kill people to protect property there....you can even use a firearm to defend YOUR NEIGHBORS PROPERTY according to their law.
Mick52
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:04 p.m.
Here is a link to the statute: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28godf5tz5aw2upo45mewxyjjo%29%29/printDocument.aspx?objectName=mcl-780-972&version=txt
TheDiagSquirrel
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:01 p.m.
How about passing a resolution against people who break into law abiding taxpayers' homes? If we didnt have crime, then there would be no need for people to defend themselves.
TheDiagSquirrel
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 2:36 a.m.
Perhaps we should pass a resolution that further explains the concept of sarcasm. Or..,better yet, the City Council can accomplish something more meaningful than resolutions that have no value.
Joe
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 10:54 p.m.
Because breaking into people's houses is definitely not against the law.
denniso800
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:46 p.m.
"Jefferson said he was minding his own business and walking over to his sister's house in Ypsilanti Township, but the man with the gun assumed Jefferson was responsible for the vandalism." "The man held Jefferson there until police came, and he was detained for several hours until it was found his finger prints didn't match those on the car." Not only does this have nothing to do with "Stand your Ground" laws, it is/was kidnapping. Nowhere does stand your ground give anyone the right to hold anyone at gunpoint.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:56 p.m.
He would have only gone to jail if someone could prove Jefferson was walking away. Otherwise, the guy with the gun could claim "I was threatened" That's *exactly* the problem with the law.
grye
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:36 p.m.
No Joe, if you assualt them and then kill them because your life is in danger, you have committed the crime for the first assault. The stand your ground is when someone come at you for the intent to do harm. If Jefferson decided to walk away and was shot, the idiot with the gun would have gone to jail.
Joe
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 10:54 p.m.
No, but it gives people a blank check to assault people and then kill them if they feel their life is in danger. Had Jefferson resisted, the assailant could have killed him and cited the stand your ground law, just as George Zimmerman did, successfully. The law gives anyone the right to assault another and then kill that person if things don't go according to plan.
denniso800
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:42 p.m.
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-764-16 Citizen's Arrest ONLY applies to a felony. Holding someone at gunpoint is NOT allowed.
Mick52
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:08 p.m.
Not true. A citizen's arrest can be done if you believe a person committed a felony. It is not kidnapping unless your thinking is totally ridiculous. Jefferson has a civil case though. What sinks your comment is that the police held him for several hours, so they thought he was a good suspect too. He can sue them too.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:46 p.m.
I am glad that the city of Ypsilanti has taken this measure even if it is only symbolic.
Solitude
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 7:06 p.m.
Sure. Because empty symbolism, especially empty symbolism rooted in ignorance, is always a good idea.
denniso800
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:43 p.m.
"Jefferson said he was minding his own business and walking over to his sister's house in Ypsilanti Township, but the man with the gun assumed Jefferson was responsible for the vandalism." "The man held Jefferson there until police came, and he was detained for several hours until it was found his finger prints didn't match those on the car." Not only does this have nothing to do with "Stand your Ground" laws, it is/was kidnapping. Nowhere does stand your ground give anyone the right to hold anyone at gunpoint.
denniso800
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:32 p.m.
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-764-16 Citizen's Arrest ONLY applies to a felony. Holding someone at gunpoint is NOT allowed.
Billy
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:26 p.m.
NOPE!!!! You can only hold someone with force under "Citizens Arrest" in this state if you witness them committing a FELONY. If the crime you witnessed was a MISDEMEANOR the most you can do is ask them to stick around under "Citizens Arrest." If you try to physically hold them for a witnessed misdemeanor you are VERY MUCH guilty of kidnapping and/or assault. ALSO....you don't get to use your gun to make a citizens arrest...that's just BEYOND illegal. It's brandishing and threatening. You can ONLY use that gun for self-defense....it isn't a tool for anything else as far as the law is concerned(cept hunting). Only law enforcement have the legal right to brandish a firearm for compliance. So Dennis is completely spot on with this, that guy's story has absolutely NOTHING to do with Stand Your Ground, or even anything related to it. Pretty sure
eyeonthenews
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 5:01 p.m.
Have you ever heard of a Citizen Arrest?
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:37 p.m.
I applaud Ypsilanti City Council for making a statement on this issue. It's in the interest of our state to rethink the SYG and weapons laws. I'm convinced that we can strike a more appropriate balance between human rights and self-defense.
Usual Suspect
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:26 a.m.
Of course you do.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:55 p.m.
See my response to your comment above - guns are designed to kill, cars are not. Even so, we're implementing technology in the U.S. to limit the ability of cars to kill people (autonomous vehicles, airbags, etc.) So, your metaphor falls flat.
grye
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:46 p.m.
Cars are a bigger problem. We should re-think car ownership.
Mr. Ed
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:06 p.m.
White lifes matter too.
FCB1899
Fri, Aug 23, 2013 : 2:25 a.m.
This may be a shock to you but ALL life matters, not only whites.
Jay Thomas
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 3:36 a.m.
Two people thought not.
matt1027
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:02 p.m.
Two more points... no one anywhere thinks that illegal guns on the streets are a good idea, so how that even entered the conversation shows the stupidity of those involved in that side of the debate. Equally nonsensical is the statistic that many of the "victims", aka the people who attacked someone who then defended themselves", were unarmed. People are injured and killed by thugs without weapons every day. It's actually far more brutal to be beaten than shot or stabbed, and goes to show the low mentality and lack of ethics that these people have. Just because there is no gun doesnt mean there is no danger. These biased and illogical stats only show those looking to repeal this law believe that their supporters are stupid enough to buy whatever they feed them.
Mick52
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:48 p.m.
Matt your post reminds me of the example I use to show how the Florida victim Zimmerman had good cause to defend himself and this example is non violent. Actress Natasha Richardson fell while skiing, hit her head on the ice and did not think the injury was severe. She died hours later of the fall.
Linda Peck
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 3:56 p.m.
This does not negate the self defense argument. That one seems reasonable, but stand your ground is excessive and dangerous. People who own guns are not necessarily responsible with them.
leaguebus
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:25 a.m.
Hey Gyre, you are almost wrong. There are only 2000 more car deaths than gun deaths. 33K to 31K. I think this is tragic.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:52 p.m.
grye, guns are designed to kill. Cars are not. That metaphor fails, horribly.
grye
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:45 p.m.
Jaime: If guns kill people, then cars also kill people. There are more people killed by cars every year than by guns. I guess people who own cars are not necessarily responsible for them, just as Linda equates this to guns. So what shall we do about all those cars killing people? Get rid of them?
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:35 p.m.
From the article - "it also called for the repeal of Public Act 319 of 1990, which prohibits local governments from imposing its own firearms restrictions."
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 11:28 p.m.
Angry Moderate, Mick25 said the following "Please list examples to prove your last sentence, if you are referring to people who legally own them." The last sentence by Linda was "People who own guns are not necessarily responsible with them." Therefore, I was pointing to examples showing that not all legal gun owners are responsible. Also, note that part of the statement of the Ypsilanti City Council related to weapons access and local weapons restrictions. In other words, my comment was spot on. Nice try though.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 9:52 p.m.
Jaime, could you please explain how repealing Stand Your Ground would prevent a 4 year old from being accidentally shot? Thanks!
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:33 p.m.
Mick52, how about the un-secured gun that killed a four year old child the other day? That gun owner was not responsible. How about the very person mentioned in this article that pulled a gun on Ricky Jefferson? That gun owner was not responsible. You get the idea.
Mick52
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:46 p.m.
Please list examples to prove your last sentence, if you are referring to people who legally own them.
Julius
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 3:49 p.m.
So are we trying to make it illegal to refuse to be a victim?
metrichead
Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 1:17 a.m.
You know, like the way social conservatives like to play "victim" by bullying gays and turnimg around and cry their religious freedom is under attack by secularists.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:27 p.m.
No, we're trying to make laws that don't allow someone to claim they were a victim after perpetrating violence on someone else without cause.
justcurious
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 3:39 p.m.
This is a very thorny issue. On the one hand the public is asked to trust the person who is using the Stand Your Ground law to "defend" themselves. That is a scary proposition. On the other hand, the possibility of having to defend yourself seems so much greater in these times. But this statement makes no sense to me.... "Mayor Paul Schreiber, who is part of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, said he believes there are too many guns on the street ." Yes, too many illegal guns but what does that have to do with the law? That is part of the justification for the law. I personally do not own a gun but have many friends and relatives who do - legally. If I decided to carry one I would make sure that I had the proper training and mindset to use it properly. I'm not sure that is always the case.
Jaime Magiera
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 8:26 p.m.
The noting of the Mayors affiliation is perhaps confusing in those sentences. I believe the Mayor is referring to guns overall. For example, someone who randomly points a weapon at another on the street because they suspect the person is a vandal should't have gotten a gun in the first place - and at the very least, should have it taken away immediately.