Here where I take classes, there seems to be a slight difference of opinion on the Goetz case.
What are the key facts in the case?
Was the man out to spearhead vigilante justice? Or was he reacting to a very threatening situation?
Second, if this fails as an example of citizen self-defense, are there other cases you know of wherein citizens were exonerated (or “should have been” exonerated) that parallel what happened here?
I’m definitely not trying to start yet another big fight here, but this is clearly too hot a topic to start under GQ.
I agree with Eve that Geotz was just waiting for that sort of situation.
That being said, he was threatened. I don’t think that shooting the youths in self-defense was wrong – aside from the one that he shot again stating “You don’t look so bad…”
Of course, there is also the fact that he was carrying the gun illegaly to begin with. Clearly he’s guilty of that. So, my verdict, assuming I’m judge and jury:
Guilty on gun charges and one count of attempted murder (provided a prosecutor could prove mens rea).
You guys have clearly heard different facts than me. From what I read (years after the fact), Goetz’s vitcims asked him a couple times to borrow some money but made no other threatening moves. If that’s really accurate, then Goetz was clearly in the wrong, IMO. In general, I’m bothered by the legal standard that self defense is justified if the person is subjectively in fear for their safety or the safety of others. I don’t necessarily feel there needs to be a completely objective standard as we have in other areas of law, but to make the shooter’s subjective view the be-all and end-all is the recipe for a more violent society.
A group of teenagers you’ve never met come to you on the subway and ask to “borrow” money - especially in the 1980s. Somehow I don’t think that they were innocently looking for a loan…
In theory you have a good idea. In practice, however, someone who is feeling threatened is not going to objectively look at the facts. More than likely their only thought is “how do I get out of this alive?”
The teenagers admitted in court that they intended to panhandle and generally “mess” with Goetz. They swore they didn’t intend to rob him or harm him. As memory serves most if not all had criminal records, and Goetz had been the victim of violent crime before. I think Eve’s assessment is the correct one: they were up to no good, he overreacted. I don’t have a terrible amount of pity for the kids and I don’t have any admiration for Goetz (who still owes me five dollars, but damned if I’m gonna ask for it back.)
Also as memory serves, weren’t there tons of articles and editorials and rallies and all praising Goetz? I know for a fact he got offers of speaking engagements at gun shows and right-wing conferences all over the country, and rather like Columbine was to many people who were miserable in high-school, the most disturbing thing was that you wondered why it doesn’t happen more often.
Using that logic, if anyone reacts violently when they feel threatened, they are therefore always in the right, no? Can any murderer then justify themself by claiming they felt threatened?
I wasn’t in the subway car with Goetz, nor was I in the jury box. The only information I have has been filtered by a sensationalist media, so I won’t cast judgment on the guy.
Personally, if I felt that threatened on a day to day basis when commuting, I’d take karate lessons, find friends to travel with, or just plain move away. I don’t think carrying a gun is the best possible response in all situations (although I grant it is sometimes necessary.) I think we should all persevere to find better solutions than that.
My opinion is that he should have been convicted of at least one count of attempted murder. Zev did a fine job of pointing out all the factors why, including the fact that, after the initial shooting, he went over to put another bullet into one of the victims (who, IIRC, won a $43 million dollar verdict against Goetz).
I think the jury instruction at the time was:
“[A] person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose.”
That instruction not only requires the subjective belief that Goetz thought he needed to use a certain amount of force, but also that that belief be reasonable. Seeing as how the “yutes” never made a verbal threat, never indicated that they had weapons, and, as Eve so eloquently put it, Goetz was a “time bomb”, I don’t think shooting first, ask questions later was a “reasonable” action. And it clearly wouldn’t cover walking over to someone you already shot, and shooting him again.
If this were the case, he would have probably wound up dead-another nameless victim of violent crime. Was Goetz justified in firing at his assailants? We have the “kids” words that theywere only going to “mess” with Goetz-how do we know that they wouldn’t have kicked the sh*t out of him, and maybe killed him?
As far as it goe, the fact is, if these kids had left Goetz alone, nothing would have happened. To surround a man and put him in (very reasonable) fear for his life is something that may well have tragic consequences(it did for this kids).
Not endorsing what goetz did, but he was perfectly justified in defending himself.
The teenagers sounded to me like your basic sociopaths – I remember reading that they had ‘deniable’ weapons on them, like screwdrivers. When you combine this with their priors, and their smiling request of a ‘loan’ (were they going to get Goetz’ address and pay him back?) it was hard not to feel some satisfaction at what happened to them.
That doesn’t justify what Goetz did, or the adulation some people heaped on him. He would have had more of my sympathies if he hadn’t crossed that line from defending himself into venting his rage and fear. Shooting the one kid a second time convinced me of this.
Goetz clearly broke the law, and deserved the punishment he got. But if I were about to receive a mugging from those brats, and someone tossed me a pistol, I don’t know what I’d do.
IIRC, Mayor Koch said that if Goetz had felt threatened, he should have gotten off at the next stop and found a policeman. :rolleyes:
Yes, F. U., they did have weapons that, if caught, would likely have gotten them lesser charges. Asking for a loan was touted as a fairly common way of setting up a theft, Cliffy. While it definitely is better, one still reads of a few subway robbery/homicides per year (simple robberies don’t make the papers); if some punks are surrounding you asking for money, you have good cause to be scared. Saying “no” is not an option.
F. U., like any NY mayor, Koch said some boneheaded things, but that one would really be out there. I don’t think he was that out of touch. Now, if you had said Mayor Dinkins, I’d be more inclined to believe Lastly, I know what I would do if someone tossed me a gun in that situation. I’d end up getting myself killed because, while able to tell which is the business end, I am wholly unqualified to operate one.
No question that he should have been convicted of attempted murder. You don’t shoot 4 people for asking you for money in self defense. You don’t walk up to one of them after you and say “You don’t look so bad, have another” and shoot him in self-defense. You don’t run and hide in Vermont for 9 days after a self-defense shooting. Goetz was a racist that decided to take the law into his own mans not an innocent victim who felt his life was in danger.
Perhaps the initial shootings were justified but I seriously doubt it. What is certain is that he deserves to be in jail for the second shooting of Mr. Cabey.
No question that he should have been convicted of attempted murder. You don’t shoot 4 people for asking you for money in self defense. You don’t walk up to one of them after you ** shot them ** and say “You don’t look so bad, have another” and shoot him in self-defense. You don’t run and hide in Vermont for 9 days after a self-defense shooting. Goetz was a racist that decided to take the law into his own ** hands ** not an innocent victim who felt his life was in danger.
Lastly, I know what I would do if someone tossed me a gun in that situation. I’d end up getting myself killed because, while able to tell which is the business end, I am wholly unqualified to operate one.