# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/21 "2013-11-08T18:27:54Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > 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. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/22 "2013-11-08T18:39:17Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > No. Subdivision two are not _exemptions_. They are _requirements_ that are necessary to fulfill the justification for physical force listed in subsection one. Exceptions, not exemptions. They are exceptions to the general rule from subsection 2, that “A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one.” Hence the _unless._ Your overall point still eludes me. What in subsection one makes use of deadly force to prevent a robbery per 2(b) not justified? Also, any response to my supporting cites? ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/23 "2013-11-08T18:52:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. The point of the comparison (as I understand it) isn’t who got shot, it’s the propriety of attacking someone in the circumstances. It assumes (I think) that Martin attacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him and being followed is threatening and causes fear. It then contrasts that with Goetz’s decision to attack the four youths for confronting him on the subway in order to rob him. The question, I believe, is: why do people view Martin as an aggressor and Goetz as a victim? (I think the question applies with equal force in a scenario where Zimmerman doesn’t shoot Martin and Martin is, instead, charged with assault). ---
**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, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/24 "2013-11-08T19:18:01Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Exceptions, not exemptions. They are exceptions to the general rule from subsection 2, that “A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one.” Hence the _unless._ They are not exceptions. Take a look: _1. A person may, **subject to the provisions of subdivision two** , use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:_ A person may use physical force to the extent _he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary_ **subject to the provisions of subdivision two**. > [@](#): > > Your overall point still eludes me. What in subsection one makes use of deadly force to prevent a robbery per 2(b) not justified? 2(b) is in regards to the duty to retreat, not the use of deadly force. Let’s take a look (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > 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. So, the part you’ve been quoting about robbery, is regarding that one does not need to retreat if he believes a robbery is taking place or about to occur. That does not mean he can use deadly force. He must still believe that deadly physical force is about to be used (as bolded above). > [@](#): > > Also, any response to my supporting cites? A newspaper article isn’t necessary as a cite when we have the statutes. What’s written in the book has to be taken in context. Better to stick to the statutes. ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/25 "2013-11-08T19:24:26Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > They are not exceptions. Take a look: > > _1. A person may, **subject to the provisions of subdivision two** , use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:_ > > A person may use physical force to the extent _he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary_ **subject to the provisions of subdivision two**. > 2(b) is in regards to the duty to retreat, not the use of deadly force. > > Let’s take a look (bolding mine): > So, the part you’ve been quoting about robbery, is regarding that one does not need to retreat if he believes a robbery is taking place or about to occur. That does not mean he can use deadly force. He must still believe that deadly physical force is about to be used (as bolded above). > A newspaper article isn’t necessary as a cite when we have the statutes. What’s written in the book has to be taken in context. Better to stick to the statutes. Unless I’m confused (entirely possible), you’re mixing up the ordering of the outline. 2 says you can’t use deadly force unless A. You believe deadly force is coming and you can’t retreat **OR** B. Kidnapping, rape, etc. **OR** C. A qualifying burglary. So the appropriate reading of 2 is: “A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: 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.” Which suggests if that you do reasonably believe you’re being robbed, you can use deadly force. ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/26 "2013-11-08T19:32:33Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Unless I’m confused (entirely possible), you’re mixing up the ordering of the outline. I see what you’re saying. However, **1.** still states “to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person.” Using deadly force for a robbery isn’y going to fly unless doing so is reasonably necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/27 "2013-11-08T19:45:42Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Because Martin is black. > > - Honesty Exactly. The kill-Martin crowd didn’t even try to hide it very hard. At least one poster here got banned over his constant ranting about blacks being thugs and “quasi-human” or some such phrase in threads about Martin. ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/28 "2013-11-08T19:59:35Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I see what you’re saying. However, **1.** still states “to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person.” Using deadly force for a robbery isn’y going to fly unless doing so is reasonably necessary. **Falchion** already pointed out what I was going to, that the duty-to-retreat part of subsection 2 is a sub-set of 2(a), which is why it is broken out as 2(a)i and 2(a)ii. i and ii do not apply to 2(b). To your above point, the robbery is what is believed to be necessary to defend against. 2(a) and 2(b) make it clear that the imminent use of deadly force, and the imminent commission of kidnapping, forcible rape, a forcible criminal sexual act or robbery, are both justifications for the use of **deadly** force in self defense. Note that subsection one includes “subject to the provisions of subdivision two”. 2(b) is such a provision. > [@x-ray vision](#): > > A newspaper article isn’t necessary as a cite when we have the statutes. What’s written in the book has to be taken in context. Better to stick to the statutes. It’s evidence that you might be interpreting the statutes incorrectly, though. I’m not offering them in lieu of the statutes, but as a guide to interpreting them. ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/29 "2013-11-08T20:02:34Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I see what you’re saying. However, **1.** still states “to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person.” Using deadly force for a robbery isn’y going to fly unless doing so is reasonably necessary. Why not? The robbers were clearly willing to rob. What would have stopped them? And even so – we don’t need the robbery. The robbers pointed a gun at the man who ultimately shot them. That act, alone, gives rise to his reasonable fear of imminent use of deadly physical force. ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/30 "2013-11-08T20:04:49Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Exactly. The kill-Martin crowd didn’t even try to hide it very hard. At least one poster here got banned over his constant ranting about blacks being thugs and “quasi-human” or some such phrase in threads about Martin. Fallacy of [hasty generalization](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization): merely because one person was a racist does not imply that any others, let alone the whole “crowd,” were. ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/31 "2013-11-08T20:14:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fallacy of [hasty generalization](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization): merely because one person was a racist does not imply that any others, let alone the whole “crowd,” were. I think **DT** is on solid ground if he’s willing to define the “kill-Martin crowd” as people who were convinced he deserved to die due to his age, gender, race, and personal problems, regardless of what the facts of what happened, or the law, may have been. There were a few scary folks in that camp. There were many more people who concluded that Zimmerman should be acquitted on the basis of the facts and the law, though. ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/32 "2013-11-08T20:35:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why not? The robbers were clearly willing to rob. What would have stopped them? I can think of all sorts of situations where one is attempting to rob another without the use of physical force where one can attempt to get out of the situation without using **deadly** physical force. > [@](#): > > And even so – we don’t need the robbery. The robbers pointed a gun at the man who ultimately shot them. That act, alone, gives rise to his reasonable fear of imminent use of deadly physical force. Of course. I wasn’t talking about a specific case. If someone is pointing a gun at you, you have a reason to believe someone is about to use deadly physical force against you. You’re a lawyer, so what’s your interpretation of the statutes Human Action linked to? Does it say that one may use deadly physical force against a robber whether or not he or she reasonably believes that his or another’s life is in danger? ---
**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, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/33 "2013-11-08T20:52:14Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Note that subsection one includes “subject to the provisions of subdivision two”. 2(b) is such a provision. Subsection 2 says (bolding mine): _A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person **under circumstances specified in subdivision one** unless…_ That means the circumstances in subdivision one must exist. Question for you: I’m a middle aged guy in pretty good shape. A 90 y.o. man slowly using a walker comes up to me on a street in NY and demands all of my money. He is not brandishing a weapon. It is obvious to me and witnesses that he is serious and of sound mind. According to your interpretation of the statutes, am I justified in using deadly force? ---
**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, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/34 "2013-11-08T20:57:14Z")
That’s not really a forcible robbery, is it? Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/35 "2013-11-08T21:00:03Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Subsection 2 says (bolding mine): _A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person **under circumstances specified in subdivision one** unless…_ > > That means the circumstances in subdivision one must exist. And in a robbery, by definition, they do. A robbery must include force, or it’s not a robbery. > [@x-ray vision](#): > > Question for you: > > I’m a middle aged guy in pretty good shape. A 90 y.o. man slowly using a walker comes up to me on a street in NY and demands all of my money. He is not brandishing a weapon. It is obvious to me and witnesses that he is serious and of sound mind. According to your interpretation of the statutes, am I justified in using deadly force? If, in the opinion of the jury, the man was robbing you, then yes, you are. That was the state’s position in the Goetz case, recall: that the men were panhandling, and not robbing, Goetz. ---
**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, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/36 "2013-11-08T21:12:36Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > And in a robbery, by definition, they do. A robbery must include force, or it’s not a robbery. Subsection one says: _use physical force upon another person **when and to the extent** he or she **reasonably believes** such to be necessary to defend…_ The extent of physical force used to defend is a factor. If it’s not necessary for the physical force used to be deadly, I doubt a court is going to interpret the law the way you did and conclude that as long as there was a robbery, deadly force is justifiable. ---
**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, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/37 "2013-11-08T21:16:41Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Subsection one says: _use physical force upon another person **when and to the extent** he or she **reasonably believes** such to be necessary to defend…_ > > The extent of physical force used to defend is a factor. If it’s not necessary for the physical force used to be deadly, I doubt a court is going to interpret the law the way you did and conclude that as long as there was a robbery, deadly force is justifiable. The statute seems to say otherwise. Here’s [another article](http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/17/nyregion/goets-cleared-subway-attack-gun-count-upheld-acquittal-won-shooting-4-youths.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm) that seems to back me up: > [@](#): > > The key question for the jurors was how to separate the vague perception of intimidation from the more specific threat of robbery, or from the ‘‘threat of deadly physical force,’’ which Justice Crane told the jurors were the two grounds that would justify Mr. Goetz’s use of his weapon. But, I’m no lawyer. I could be wrong. I’m content to wait for some of the resident lawyers to chime in, if they’d be so kind. ---
**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, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/38 "2013-11-08T21:16:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That’s not really a forcible robbery, is it? Okay, the 90lbs. old man grabs me by the collar when he demands my money. I bash his skull in with a brick. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/39 "2013-11-08T21:20:13Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I think **DT** is on solid ground if he’s willing to define the “kill-Martin crowd” as people who were convinced he deserved to die due to his age, gender, race, and personal problems, regardless of what the facts of what happened, or the law, may have been. There were a few scary folks in that camp. Any they are whom I’m talking about. however… > [@Human\_Action](#): > > There were many more people who concluded that Zimmerman should be acquitted on the basis of the facts and the law, though. On the contrary, I believe that the racists were the majority, not the minority. If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black, Zimmerman would have almost no support at all. And he’d almost certainly have been convicted. ---
**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, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401/40 "2013-11-08T21:25:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Here’s [another article](http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/17/nyregion/goets-cleared-subway-attack-gun-count-upheld-acquittal-won-shooting-4-youths.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm) that seems to back me up: > > > [@](#): > > > > The key question for the jurors was how to separate the vague perception of intimidation from the more specific threat of robbery, or from the ‘‘threat of deadly physical force,’’ which Justice Crane told the jurors were the two grounds that would justify Mr. Goetz’s use of his weapon. It says right there “which Justice Crane told the jurors were the **two grounds** that would justify Mr. Goetz’s use of his weapon”. Those two things are “the specific threat of robbery” and the "threat of deadly physical force.‘’ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-goetz-case-vs-the-martin-case/673401.md?page=3)