# The Goetz case Vs. the Martin case. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 8, 2013, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401 "2013-11-08T10:31:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/1 "2013-11-08T10:31:25Z")
In the various Martin/Zimmerman threads, I stated I thought that since Martin was in fear of bodily harm, it was ok for him to hit Zimmerman. I was told that fear alone is not a justification for the use of force, the burden is on him to retreat, and therefore Martin was acting like a thug and deserved to be killed. In the Goetz thread, it seems to me some of the same people are saying the opposite of this. [Here is one example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=121922). I’m not understanding why Goetz is seen as a hero defending himself but Martin is seen as a thug that deserved to be killed. Even though he was the one being stalked by a stranger with a gun. With Goetz, they only had screwdrivers, but on that thread all I see is a bunch of excuses of why it was ok for Goetz to shoot them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/2 "2013-11-08T12:11:17Z")
There’s no evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun. It’s often said, “Zimmerman followed him with a gun”, but that’s not very useful considering that if you leave the house in many states, you’ll be followed by someone with a gun at some point. YOu just won’t know who is carrying and who isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/3 "2013-11-08T14:04:48Z")
Martin was not killed for punching Zimmerman, but for mounting him and bashing his head against the ground. Martin was larger than Zimmerman, in better shape and could have run away if he had felt threatened. He also had a phone. He could have run away, called the police, or called his family if he felt threatened. Plenty of alternatives to violence. The Goetz case was totally different. Goetz was accosted by four men, all larger than him in an closed space where there was no possibility of escape. There was nothing else he could have done to defend himself other than brandishing the pistol. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/4 "2013-11-08T14:11:41Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > In the various Martin/Zimmerman threads, I stated I thought that since Martin was in fear of bodily harm, it was ok for him to hit Zimmerman. I was told that fear alone is not a justification for the use of force, the burden is on him to retreat, and therefore Martin was acting like a thug and deserved to be killed. Whomever told you that is correct that fear alone is not justification for the use of the force. They are incorrect that Martin, Zimmerman, or anyone else in Flordia has a duty to retreat before using force in self-defense. [QUOTE=split p&j] In the Goetz thread, it seems to me some of the same people are saying the opposite of this. [Here is one example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=121922). [/quote] Is there one post in particular you can point to? > [@split p&j](#): > > I’m not understanding why Goetz is seen as a hero defending himself but Martin is seen as a thug that deserved to be killed. Even though he was the one being stalked by a stranger with a gun. > > With Goetz, they only had screwdrivers, but on that thread all I see is a bunch of excuses of why it was ok for Goetz to shoot them. Setting aside inflammatory value judgments like “thug” and “deserved to be killed”, in the Goetz case, four men surrounded him and demanded money. That is a robbery. Under [New York law](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm#p35.15), deadly force can be used to prevent a robbery. In the Martin case, Zimmerman followed Martin for some distance, then stopped. He may or may not have resumed following him after hanging up with the NEN dispatcher. Even if he did, following someone is not a threat or a crime. Unless Zimmerman threatened or attacked Martin, Martin was not justified in using force in self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/5 "2013-11-08T14:13:07Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > In the various Martin/Zimmerman threads, I stated I thought that since Martin was in fear of bodily harm, it was ok for him to hit Zimmerman. I was told that fear alone is not a justification for the use of force, the burden is on him to retreat, and therefore Martin was acting like a thug and deserved to be killed. > > In the Goetz thread, it seems to me some of the same people are saying the opposite of this. [Here is one example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=121922). > > I’m not understanding why Goetz is seen as a hero defending himself but Martin is seen as a thug that deserved to be killed. Even though he was the one being stalked by a stranger with a gun. > > With Goetz, they only had screwdrivers, but on that thread all I see is a bunch of excuses of why it was ok for Goetz to shoot them. It depends on what facts you choose to believe, I suppose. Goetz was cornered in a subway car and confronted by four people who (he thought, probably correctly) were trying to mug him. Martin saw someone who believed (correctly) was following him and looked creepy. Obviously, neither Goetz nor Martin would have any way of knowing the extent to which the others were armed. Assume for a moment that both being surrounded by four black youths and being followed by a cracker constitute a reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury, you have to ask whether the attack was necessary to prevent it. If you choose to believe that Zimmerman chased down Martin and confronted him, then the answer is more likely to be yes than if you believe that Martin confronted Zimmerman and attacked him. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/6 "2013-11-08T16:30:31Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > In the various Martin/Zimmerman threads, I stated I thought that since Martin was in fear of bodily harm, it was ok for him to hit Zimmerman. I was told that fear alone is not a justification for the use of force, the burden is on him to retreat, and therefore Martin was acting like a thug and deserved to be killed. > > In the Goetz thread, it seems to me some of the same people are saying the opposite of this. [Here is one example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=121922). > > I’m not understanding why Goetz is seen as a hero defending himself but Martin is seen as a thug that deserved to be killed. Even though he was the one being stalked by a stranger with a gun. > > With Goetz, they only had screwdrivers, but on that thread all I see is a bunch of excuses of why it was ok for Goetz to shoot them. Because Martin is black. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/7 "2013-11-08T16:41:30Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Because Martin is black. > > - Honesty Facts and law be damned, it’s just that simple, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/8 "2013-11-08T16:52:00Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Because Martin is black. > > - Honesty **Was**. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/9 "2013-11-08T16:52:09Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I’m not understanding why Goetz is seen as a hero defending himself but Martin is seen as a thug that deserved to be killed. I’m not understanding why you’re contrasting Goetz and Martin. Shouldn’t you be comparing Goetz to Zimmerman, and Martin to Allen/Canty/Cabey/Ramseu? It’s a minor quibble, but I was trying to parse the sentence and realized it was comparing apples to oranges, if apples had guns and oranges got shot. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/10 "2013-11-08T17:01:21Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Facts and law be damned, it’s just that simple, eh? Yup. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/11 "2013-11-08T17:08:22Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > Yup. I can see the allure of that perspective, it offers simple answers to complex questions, and means not having to put in the work of reading up on the particulars of individual cases. Alluring as it is, though, it’s worthless as a method of answering the question from the OP. Unless, that is, one is willing to embrace a delusion that in all cases in which a black person is shot by a non-black person, the non-black person was in the wrong, and the black person was denied justice. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/12 "2013-11-08T17:14:20Z")
[QUOTE=split p&j] I’m not understanding why Goetz is seen as a hero defending himself but Martin is seen as a thug that deserved to be killed. [/QUOTE] Because Goetz was attacked, and Martin wasn’t. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/13 "2013-11-08T17:21:12Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Under [New York law](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm#p35.15), deadly force can be used to prevent a robbery. I believe you’ve misinterpreted what you linked to. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/14 "2013-11-08T17:24:38Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I believe you’ve misinterpreted what you linked to. If so, please explain. The relevant statute is: > [@](#): > > 1. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person > under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: > (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or > about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the > actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with > complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the > necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no > duty to retreat if he or she is: > (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or > (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police > officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to > section 35.30; or > (b) **He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing > or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal > sexual act or robbery; or** > (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing > or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that > the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of > section 35.20. Bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/15 "2013-11-08T17:30:20Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > If so, please explain. The relevant statute is: > [@](#): > > 1. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person > **under circumstances specified in subdivision one** unless: See subdivision one. Bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/16 "2013-11-08T17:38:38Z")
… unless the subsection **Human Action** bolded applies. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/17 "2013-11-08T17:42:32Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > See subdivision one. > > Bolding mine. Not following you. Deadly force cannot be used under the circumstances of subdivision one (reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful physical force). It can be used under the exceptions of subdivision two, including (b), as robbery, rape, and such are inherently threats. By way of support: [Self Defense Laws in New York](http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/Self-Defense-Laws-in-New-York-217697461.html) > [@](#): > > Legal experts say New York law allows the use of deadly weapons in self-defense if a victim fears for their life, the life of someone else or in the cases of a robbery or rape. [A Crime of Self-Defense: Bernhard Goetz and the Law on Trial](http://books.google.com/books?id=_Xtc-6yRG6QC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=new+york+self+defense+robbery&source=bl&ots=w-PKs4X9Q2&sig=uLz3trOW2yVZlMHDq_GknA4ZG44&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JyB9Uua8DeLbyQGnoIHQAQ&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20self%20defense%20robbery&f=false) > [@](#): > > The New York statute on seld-defense recognizes two distinct forms of imminent attack on which Goetz could and did ground his claim of self-defense. The first is that one is subject to the “imminent use of deadly physical force”; the second, making New York more favorable than many states to claims of self-defense, is that a robbery is about to be committed\*. In both cases, provided that other conditions of self-defense are satisfied, Goetz would be entitled to respond with deadly force. > > In the latter case of robbery, the requirement of an imminent attack finds expression in the question whether the aggressor is about to commit or attempting to commit a robbery. > > - The requirement of “imminence” is expressed in the statutory reference to a robbery’s being “about” to be committed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/18 "2013-11-08T17:44:03Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > In the various Martin/Zimmerman threads, I stated I thought that since Martin was in fear of bodily harm, it was ok for him to hit Zimmerman. I was told that fear alone is not a justification for the use of force, the burden is on him to retreat, and therefore Martin was acting like a thug and deserved to be killed. I believe you misinterpreted what you were told. You use the word “fear,” without any qualifiers, in a way that constitutes the fallacy of equivocation: fear alone not being a justification for the use of force in the case of Martin, and Goetz’s fear somehow being justification for his actions. At the outset, it’s fair to point out that Martin’s conduct is viewed through the laws of Florida in 2012 and Goetz’s through the laws of New York in 1984. But putting that aside: In Martin’s case, it’s absolutely correct to say that his “fear,” alone, is not sufficient. The evidence did not show that Martin had a reasonable belief that he was facing imminent death or great bodily harm, or facing a forcible felony. So you cannot simply shortcut that standard to “fear.” Martin may well have been afraid, but that alone does not entitle him to use deadly force. A reasonable fear of imminent death, great bodily harm, or facing a forcible felony would. Now, Goetz. Goetz did in fact has reasonable fear of a forcible felony. The evidence showed that Goetz was seated, four men working with each other surrounded him, and one demanded money. The jury that heard those facts credited them as true and decided that Goetz’s fear was reasonable. So, again, to simply characterize this as “fear” is poor analysis: it was a reasonable fear of robbery. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/19 "2013-11-08T17:49:13Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > See subdivision one. > > Bolding mine. The limits in subdivision one are: [ul] [li]The robber’s conduct was provoked by the shooter with the shooter’s intent to cause physical injury to the robber – no evidence of this in Goetz’s case[/li][li]The shooter was the initial aggressor – no evidence of this in Goetz’s case[/li][li]The robber’s initial force against the shooter was the product of a combat by agreement – no evidence of this in Goetz’s case[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/20 "2013-11-08T18:19:19Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Not following you. Deadly force cannot be used under the circumstances of subdivision one (reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful physical force). It can be used under the exceptions of subdivision two, including (b), as robbery, rape, and such are inherently threats. No. Subdivision two are not _exemptions_. They are _requirements_ that are necessary to fulfill the justification for physical force listed in subsection one. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401.md?page=2)