What's your "verdict" on Bernhard Goetz?

Great Debates
21

That’s not true. The way shooting is taught is “Center Mass” or “Vital Area”. There is no such thing as “shoot-to-wound”. The survivor of a self-defense shooting is lucky, because that is most definitely not the intent of the person doing the defending.

If you pull a weapon out in self-defense, the assumption is that the threat is dangerous enough to require deadly force, and therefore the target should be dead. Cold, but true. After all the discussions we’ve had about this here I’m surprised that anybody would pull out the old “shoot-to-wound” canard. A gun is a last resort deadly weapon, and that should ALWAYS be remembered.

22

I don’t think it’s a shame at all. I believe that there was another factor involved in the decision to prosecute Goetz- his complete lack of concern for the other passengers on the train. He was very lucky- the train didn’t suddenly stop, no one else stumbled into his line of fire, he didn’t miss, none of the bullets passed through his target and into a bystander.

In another situation (say, in an empty alley), the initial shootings might have been justified. But there was no justification for shots once any threat had been eliminated, and there was no justification for endangering the other passengers. Not at the point where Goetz did it- they asked him for money, and that was it. Although they had screwdrivers, Goetz didn’t know that.

23

He walked up, stood over one of the young men, commented that “You don’t look so bad, have another” and proceeded to shoot him again causing paralization and brain damage. That is not a self-defense shooting and he should have gone to jail for it.

24

I agree with that, but the contention made by monstro is that shooting in self-defense should not result in death, and I disagreed. Survival of the person shot is entrely coincidental. A follow-up shooting is no longer self-defense unless that person has a weapon and is bringing it to bear on you. What Goetz did after the initial shooting was indeed criminal.

25

I think thats what ** monstro ** meant

26

All I can add to the discussion–and I’m going to be really, really, REALLY frank here–was the atmosphere here in NY when this happened. Crime was constant, random, and horribly bad. The subway was filthy and dangerous, with graffiti everywhere that came off on your clothes and was not pretty and artistic at all, dead-eyed young people with loud radios, and usually 2-3 homeless people sprawled at the end of the car. You did not go into most of the parks (except Central; Bryant, Madison, Washington, Union–all were no-go zones. And if you were a gril, you also stayed across the street so you would not get dragged in). You took off all your jewelry before going on the subway or for long walks. You scattered your money about your person except for the 2-5 dollars of mugging money you kept handy, in the hopes the mugger would accept it and go away. Mothers in bad neighborhoods put their children to sleep in bathtubs because stray bullets would not find them there. Times Square was also a no-go zone; as a girl men would routinely expose themselves to you as you walked–quickly, without stopping, head down, coat closed, purse clasped in both arms–to the theater or a restaurant.

Basically, growing up in the 70s and 80s, I was taught that it was a great city but that the criminals were everywhere, pervasive, and that they would always be there, and that every man was a suspect. And sadly, men of color were particularly suspect, and they knew it, and all too many of them, feeling they had nothing to lose or prove, acted it. Loud radios (no earphones back then), loud clothes, loud talking, cursing in front of children and old ladies, lots of attitude, towards everybody, black people, Latino people, white people. I can’t totally blame them, they were so poor and so lost. Nice white New Yorkers like me were told to pity them since they had such bleak lives and no prospects–but, make sure your necklaces are tucked in and your rings off anyway, honey. And the point was, this was normal. These guys were in control. Regular people, of all classes and colors, were told not to fight back, not to make eye contact, keep their heads down, and hope to God that these kids weren’t going to get them this time. And surely, life would never get better. It had gotten worse for years and would always keep getting worse, especially for those of us in the outer boros with long long subway rides and nowhere to escape to. (Thank God we were all so wrong!)

One of those “kids” on the subway had raped a neighbor girl so badly she needed stitches. The screwdrivers were sharpened as weapons. Goetz may not have known this, but these were the sort of people they were. Guys like this spread fear not by waving weapons around, necessarily, but by looming, staring, and making threats that may not sound like threats when you read them on a computer screen in one’s house, but were on a par with a stranger following you out of a club, cornering you in an alley, and leering “Hey baby, gimme a kiss.” Cute when your boyfriend says it at the prom, but…

So when the news broke about what Goetz had done, THAT’S why he became everybody’s hero for a while. Finally, someone had said NO. Not me, not this time, not here. Violence had finally been dealt back out by a mousy little blond guy who was the stereotypical victim. The hunters had finally been taken down.

Now, that changed fairly rapidly IIRC (I was a teenager)–first the racial angle made people uncomfortable, then the paralysis of the unlucky teen, then the fact of the second shot fired into him, then that there were other people nearby, then the fact that Goetz fled…He has a mixed record now, and your perspective will depend on your race, age, sex, and record of being victimized during the bad times. But the OP asked why people at the time initially thought he was a hero, and here’s my perspective. Sorry to be so blunt, but it was a blunt time, with nerves frayed and snarling frustration under everybody’s surface. Goetz’ erupted in a spectacular way and, for a moment, he was a proxy for everyone elses. He was our sheriff.

27

But the people that he shot were clearly devils who deserved to be shot. And except for the re-shooting of the one lowlife, violent thug, the other shootings were completely just.

People everyday don’t get charged for crimes committed against scumbags or are at least prosecuted for lesser offences. Someone locally beat the living shit of an adult that he found kissing his junior high aged daughter. No charges filed. Another local case involved someone shooting a thief in the legs while he was running away. Instead of felony charges, he was charged with simple misdemeanor battery. I am saying that Goetz similar consideration. Not that I would expect common sense justice to have been applied in NYC then or now.

28

Goetz deserved :smack:

29

On what basis do you think Goetz judged these youths to be scumbags deserving of being shot?

30

Thanks Mehitabel. That does add a lot of perspective.

I’ve never even been to NYC other than to change planes, but my understanding is that crime in the streets was Guiliani’s equivalent of Mussolini making the trains run on time.

31

This assumes that he should have submitted to being robbed, or perhaps worse.

IIRC, the first police officer on the scene reported that he asked one of the people Goetz shot, “What happened?” The response was, “We were trying to rob this white guy, and he shot us.” So I don’t believe this could be characterized as simple panhandling., as some seem to be suggesting.

This is the part of the convictions that makes the least sense to me. He was, IIRC, acquitted of criminal responsibility for shooting the four. But he was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm. In other words, he was justified in shooting them, but should not have been allowed to own the means to do so.

Goetz applied for a carry permit after having been mugged earlier, and it was denied. It seems his judgement as to whether or not he needed to carry was better than that of the city of New York.

Because even if the shootings were justified, he made an accurate judgement that he was going to be prosecuted. Unlike the four guys he shot, he was white, he had a job, he was invested in the system and had something to lose.

What the hell did the four robbers care about another conviction? The only one of the four who was not subsequently convicted of unrelated crimes against the public was the paralyzed one, whose career in crime seems to have been brought to a halt by the shooting. Sic transit gloria mundi. Goetz was different. He had some money. And, as I mentioned, he was white and the four criminals were black, and therefore every race pimp in New York could call for his head for shooting the poor, disadvantaged youths (who all had long criminal records) who were minding their own business on the subway (on their way to rob vending machines) who innocently approached (in order to rob) the evil, nasty, hateful, racist white guy (who happened to be better armed than they were. Oops.)

Turning himself in later was, in my opinion, his major mistake. If it had been me, I would have shot the four (but NOT gone back to shoot anyone again), left the subway immediately, discarded the weapon someplace, and never said a word about it to anyone, ever.

Can’t argue with this. The final shot was, in my opinion, unjustified.

Regards,
Shodan

32

As I said, I’m not sure what I would have done if someone had thrown me a gun.

My actions would probably have been a compromise between Shodan’s, and pulling out the gun and making it clear that I was very willing to use it. Maybe even firing a shot in the roof of the subway car. This would have showed more concern for the others in the car.

Disadvantage: brandishing a firearm can be a good way to get yourself killed, especially if you’re outnumbered. However, I have indeed seen acts of violence defused when a prospective victim pulled out a rod (I’m from West Virginia).

33

So much for respect for the law. Of what use are laws if people only respect the ones they agree with?

34

Hmm. That sounds a lot like a threat to me, zev. So now I’m justified in blowing you away.

–Cliffy

35

Very little use. So when four people fail to respect the laws against shakedowns, the social contract tends to break down. It seems part of the present discussion is, “what do we do then?”

It seems that Goetz did something that was at least not criminally liable, although the last “You don’t look so bad” shot had civil liabilities. And the only law he failed to respect seems to have been the concealed carry law, which conviction, as I said, makes no sense to me. “It’s legal to do this, but illegal to be able to do this” seems a mixed message at best.

But you are correct. If those involved had respected and obeyed the laws, this would never have happened. Especially the ones who initiated the incident.

Regards,
Shodan

36

How is standing over a helpless person and firing a bullet into their spine not attempted murder?

37

You’d have to ask the jury that, I suppose.

Regards,
Shodan

38

So let’s be clear on this subject. You believe Goetz was justified in breaking the law (conceal & carry) because others broke the law? Does this apply to everyone who is the victim of a criminal act, and wants to lash out at the perpetrator? This approach might save some money on law enforcement and incarceration, but it does little to promote the public peace.

39

Fear Itself, you’re looking at this as pure abstract theory, outside of the social and mental and physical mileau in which it happened. I’ve tried to show that the times made that virtually impossible.

40

Then you shouldn’t have said:

It sure as shit seems to me he failed to respect the law against murder perhaps you meant the only law he was found guilty of breaking.