Well, I think you could make a convincing case that he was justified in breaking the law against concealed carry because he needed the weapon to defend himself against the four muggers. He apparently convinced the jury that he needed it, since they acquitted him of everything except concealed carry violations. So, as I said, the net effect is to say, “the shooting was justified, but Goetz should not have been allowed to carry it out”. As I said, this seems like a confused message to be sending.
Are you talking about self-defense? Yes, I think someone is morally (IANAL) justified in using an illegal weapon in self-defense.
And I suspect the notion that “acting in self-defense does not promote the public peace” is going to turn into a gun control thread rather quickly. And then ExTank can come along and beat you into the ground with cites about the number of times firearms are used in self-defense in the US.
But I suppose you could argue that it would have been easier if Goetz would have tamely submitted to being robbed. Whether or not that is the sort of public peace we should be promoting is a more contentious question.
There are at least two kinds of public peace. One is the one where free citizens go about their business, relying on society as a whole for mutual protection. And when society fails, relying on themselves and each other.
The other is the one where everybody keeps their heads down and hopes the predators pick on someone else.
I suspect much of the furore over Goetz came from people who preferred the first over the second, and saw Goetz’s actions as tending to that goal.
I’ve been on the New York subway system. In my experience, the one to be afraid of is not the nerdy electronics repairman sitting off by himself. Even if he is armed, providing you don’t try to mug him, he isn’t much of a threat.
Essentially, yes - “failed to respect” in this context means “was convicted of breaking in a criminal court”. The civil trial was another matter, obviously.
Goetz was a timebomb. I don’t believe it would’ve taken an attempt to mug him, to set him off. Any perceived threat especially from a black male would’ve done it. He’s brushes against some black guy, doesn’t say sorry; the guy asks him what the fuck’s wrong with him…? BANG. He was waiting for it, hell I wouldn’t be surprised if gave 'em that “come mess with me” look, so he could let 'em have it.
He was a timid rabbit, that got some fangs…but was still a rabbit none-the-less. He was lucky that a stray bullet didn’t catch someone, the guys he shot were actually what he assumed them to be and the city was tired of high school kids from Brooklyn scaring them…change one of those elements and Goetz finds himself eaten alive in Rikers.
Mehitabel was right on the money concerning the environment that created Goetz. However once the desire to see those people be scared for a change was over, the realization that Goetz was freaking nuts set in. …bravery and Goetz don’t go together.
Be reasonable, Cliffy. A jury will have to decide what is a threat and what isn’t. Four imposing youths asking for a “loan” on a subway with the implicit threat of violence would sound to most people like a threat. My stating
would not be viewed by most people on a jury as a threat.
I don’t know about that. I thought he had been carrying a concealed weapon on the subways (he didn’t own a car) for years. But he never shot anybody until the attempted shakedown.
“What might have been” is inherently undebateable, I suppose.
Shodan People go to work everyday for years, then one day they start shooting their co-workers. Why? What happened that day, that didn’t happen the day before?
I’m going by memory and I may well be mistaken, but I remember they released video of the police interviews of him, and he was this ball of rage. He wasn’t going to be a afraid anymore, not going to be a victim anymore. He was going to show them.
I simply question your assertion that Goetz would not had been a threat had no one attacked him…we’re never going to know of course, but I’m not so sure.
I think what bothers me about most of the Goetz supporters is the idea that what Goetz did was absolutely right. We should all be clear on the idea that what Goetz did was *not * right under any circumstances. That said, sometimes you’re put in a position where you have to do things that are not right.
Goetz had several alternatives available to him which could have avoided this situation: He could have travelled with a group of friends. He could have taken a taxi. He could have called the Guardian Angels and asked them for an escort (they lived for that kind of thing.) He could have tried telling the kids that he wasn’t going to give them any money, and for all we know, they would have walked away. He didn’t try any of those things, he just went and shot them. Maybe he had to do it, but he shouldn’t be lauded for it. Rather than making a hero out of him, we should recognize him as someone who failed to find a better alternative.
Unless one feels they are in imminent danger of deadly force, and must act immediately, isn’t it considered good form to brandish a deadly weapon, warn the potential assailant to cease all threatenting behavior, and then shoot if they do not comply? Seems Goetz leapfrogged much of the standard procedure. Unless I’m missing something, he acted retributively, not defensively.
Just cause he was acquitted doesn’t mean he didn’t break the law or that he was justified. Plenty of guilty people are not convicted, it doesn’t mean their actions were justified or legal.
He didn’t need to use a gun, he wanted to. I’m surprised you’d extol his judgment considering he’s a racist time bomb who tried to murder someone in cold blood.
This is laughable. You think people are more likely to be prosecuted because they are white and employed? He knew he’d be prosecuted because people don’t typically forget about an incident where 4 people are shot on the subway. More importantly, he knew he was wrong. Immediately after the shooting, the conductor pulled the emergency brake, and arrived on the scene to see Goetz holding the gun. He asked Goetz if he was a police officer. Goetz said, " No… I don’t know why I did it" PAUSE “They tried to rip me off.” The conductor asked Goetz for his gun, Goetz declined, walked though the doorway at the front of the car, unhooked the safety chain, jumped onto the tracks, and disappeared into the darkness. Clearly, the actions of a coward and a man who thinks he did something wrong. He thought he’s be prosecuted because he thought he did something wrong.
Completely irrelevant.
How despicable of those race pimps to bring up the fact that an irrational and aggressive racist ended up shooting 4 black guys on the subway. How dare they state the facts and demand justice.
Goetz wanted to shoot someone. He walked into the subway car and sat down right across from the rowdy teenagers. He wanted trouble. There isn’t a major city in this country where you can’t find trouble if you go looking for it. That’s not to say the kids are blameless, but let’s not pretend Goetz was just some guy trying to ride the subway in peace.
Goetz was a time bomb as many other people have noted. He was constantly clashing with his supervisors at Westinghouse, and breaking company and union rules. He had a problem with authority long before he entered that subway car. As Malcolm Gladwell intimated in his book, Goetz was most likely responsible for burning down a vacant newsstand near his building used by vagrants. Goetz swept up the debris from the mysterious fire the next day. Who knows how many other disruptive and often illegal things Goetz has done.
I repeat, Bernard Goetz was looking for trouble. Lilian Rubin, a Goetz biography commented that living on 14th street (a bad neighborhood) could hardly be an accident because,“for Bernie, there seems to be something seductive about the setting. Precisely because of its deficits and discomforts, it provided him with a comprehensible target for the rage that lived inside him. By focusing it on the external world, he need not deal with his internal one. He rails about the dirt, the noise, the drunks, the crime, the pushers, the junkies, And all with good reason. [Goetz’s bullets] were aimed at targets that existed as much in his past as in his present.”
Goetz was every bit the sociopath the kids in the subway were. To paint his as some kind of hero is unconscionable. He is nutcase who shot 4 people.
If you would do that, then you are a coward with no respect for the law and human life. Just opening fire in a subway car puts everyone in danger. It’s pretty embarrassing that you can’t see that.
No, shooting people who are threatening you is the right thing to do. Perhaps Goetz went too far, but when someone is threatened he is morally correct in defending himself.
Are you kidding me? Do you know how impractical this is? Taking a taxi everywhere is too expensive. Travelling with a group of friends is not a realistic alternative. Your friends aren’t usually with you 24/7 and rarely are they going to be heading to the same places as you throughout the day. Similarly, why should Goetz have to be escorted around the city by the Guardian Angels? One should feel free to go wherever he or she wants, without the needs to be escorted. And refusing muggers is simply not an option. I think Goetz would have found those sharpened screwdrivers imbedded in a vital part of his body had he simply said no. Instead, he refused to be a victim and shot the thugs. Good. I wish more people in D.C. would be like him. The place would be better off.
Part of the basic concept underlying civilization is that we don’t go around committing violents acts on one another. When such things occur, we don’t respond violently, we instead turn to the legal or judicial systems to act on our behalf in a fair and equitable manner. Responding to violence with violence is what cavemen do, not civilized people.
Taking it upon yourself to respond in an inherently violent manner without due process or the backing of law is a violation of the basic principles of civilization. It’s not the right thing. The fact that sometimes people have no choice and MUST do violence on others does not make these actions morally correct. It makes them morally necessary, which is different.
To put it another way, if you get stuck in the Andes with your friends, your friends die of hypothermia and you have no choice but to eat them to survive, you have not done something laudable or morally correct. Noone should celebrate the fact that you have become a cannibal. What you did was necessary, but not admirable. The correct thing would have been to avoid the situation entirely.
We stand in sharp disagreement here. See my earlier comment.
You are correct when you say that Goetz shouldn’t have to take a taxi or go with friends everywhere. You left out the fact that he also shouldn’t have to carry a gun. Goetz should not be required to do any of these things. When he decided his safety was at risk he could have taken any of these actions, he chose the gun.
Here again we see our differences - you wish more people were like Goetz. I, on the other hand, wish less people were like Goetz’s muggers. See the difference?
Goetz’s muggers were just looking for some punk to intimidate and rob, Goetz was armed, travelling alone, trawling for would-be muggers to shoot. Given the atmosphere in NYC at the time it’s not surprising he was lionized.
Now, see, if Goetz had beat the shit out of them dudes dressed in a cape and cowl, that’s a mugger prevention program I can get behind.
I did a little Googling. IIRC I read it in National Review at the time, and I no longer have my back issues. Closest I can come up with is Jimmy Breslin’s interview with Cabey (the one who was paralyzed), who said that they wanted to rob Goetz because he "looked like easy bait." So I don’t think these three were exactly Eagle Scouts on their way to choir practice.
Well, actually it does mean that, at least in a legal sense. Morally, we can go back and forth, but the criminal justice system found that Goetz was not guilty of anything except illegal possession.
Your definition of “cold blood” is a good bit different from mine. The jury’s, too.
No, I think he was much more a part of the system, and had more to lose, than the four petty criminals who attempted this robbery.
He also had reason to expect that assholes like Al Sharpton were going to jump all over him based on the fact that he was white and they were black. Which turned out to be the case.
Goes to motive. And especially it goes to show that the initiators of the whole incident were the four shootees who got a great deal more than they bargained for.
Well, again, all I need to say is that the folks mentioned here are people like Al Sharpton. And I kind of doubt that a high-minded concern for abstract justice is behind much of what that asshole does.
Great Scott - actually sitting? Right there on the subway? Real close to black teen-agers?
He should be strung up for that alone! Sitting there like he had paid his fare and had a right to be left alone to go home in peace. The noive!
You have certainly opened my eyes. Now I realize that anyone who sits down close to me is itching for a chance to blow my brains out.
Even if I don’t surround him with three of my friends and try to shake him down for money.
I’m actually stunned that people are defending Goetz as though he did nothing wrong. The man stood over a helpless person, cracked a joke and shot him. Jeez ** Shodan ** did you even read the rest of your cite?
Jeez if that sounds like a man merely defended himself to you then I simply don’t know what to say.
These kids were scumbags at the time and continued to be scumbags afterwards. I don’t really fault Goetz for thinking that way about them. The world would be a better place without them. Goetz just says it more graphically.
I guess I should have remembered to turn towards the judical system or the police when those four guys attempted to relieve me of my wallet so many years back. Let’s face facts, the police cannot possibly be there every time they are needed. The judicial system isn’t going to be of immediate help when some punk wants to stick a screwdriver in my neck because I’ve got something he wants.
That’s just plain silly. Given that most states have laws saying when it’s ok to use force or deadly force I think we can say that violent reactions can have the backing of law. The person attacking is the one violating your basic principle of civilization not the defender. Also, due process applies to the government taking away the rights of others it doesn’t apply to an individual defending himself, or a criminal robbing someone for that matter. I also don’t really get the difference between being morally correct and morally necessary and your cannibalism example didn’t really clear things up. If something is morally necessary then it must be morally correct.
Well, but if more people were like Goetz, fewer people would be like Goetz’s muggers. Look, I think everyone could agree that it would be better if fewer people would be like Goetz’s muggers. But, given that muggers exist, if somebody is threatening your life, it’s a good thing to oppose them. If the choice was Goetz getting hurt or some lowlife thugs getting hurt, it’s good the lowlife thugs got hurt, because they deserved it.
Well, I said that the last shot was not justified.
This stuff about abortions and eye gougings is not that relevant. I have no doubt that Goetz hated muggers, to the point that he carried a gun in case he was mugged (again). But carrying a gun and shooting a mugger or four when they try to rob you is different from going out looking for trouble. Goetz carried a gun and rode the subway for some time, and nothing bad ever happened until some punks tried to shake him down. And, when Goetz shot them, the jury found that his actions were justified. Except for the gun possession, as has been mentioned.
In saying that this could be seen as a public service shooting, Goetz was stating an opinion that seems to have been shared by a substantial number of New Yorkers. Twelve of them, at least.
