What's your "verdict" on Bernhard Goetz?

Great Debates
61

I want to quote this from the USA Today article linked earlier:

Leviosaurus, your options for avoiding the subway are ludicrous. A daily Guardian Angel escort? Cabs? Subway-pool? Just say “No”? The subway, to a NYer, is like a car to most of the rest of a nation. Can you afford a daily cab to work? Neither can we. Subway-pool is only possible if (a) you and your workmates work exactly the same schedule and (b) live in the same neighborhood. Many of us, however, work until the nebulous “when I’m finished”.

Unlike many posters, I see Goetz as neither hero nor villian, but rather a mixture of both. I’ll not fault the man for refusing to be a victim, but he certainly isn’t the type of person I’d feel comfortable being around knowing he’s got a weapon. I’d be even less comfortable, though, if his four assailants were asking me for $5.00 in the subway, even in today’s “kinder, gentler” NYC mass transit system.

62

Well, others have already mentioned that, however that is not what you stated.

So OJ Simpson is innocent too? Plenty of guilty people walk free.

Shooting an injured person, who is no longer a threat, after making a sarcastic remark to him is pretty cold blooded.

And he had a lot more to defend himself with. The justice system screws tons of people, but I have a hard time buying employed white guys are the primary victims.

Just cause Sharpton may be a blowhard doesn’t mean he isn’t right in any one particular incident.

What? The crimes they committed *after * the shooting goes to motive? That makes no sense whatsoever. We already knew they were probably going to rob him. The fact that they committed crimes after the fact is nothing more then a sad attempt to make Bernie Goetz look better by comparison.

First, Al Sharton isn’t a complete asshole like you assume he is. He is a politician who is no worse than many others out there. If you really want to deny that he has often been on the correct side of justice then I will provide some cites.

Of course he has the right to do something stupid. I also have the right to leave $100 bills sticking out of my jacket pockets as I walk around. I can hang out in an alley or a redneck bar if I want. I don’t because I know the possible outcome of doing such things. Reasonable people don’t typically do things like that. Everyone else on the train sat far away from these kids because they knew what Goetz knew, that the kids were abrasive, and possibly dangerous. He sat down right across from them for the same reasons he decided to live on 14th street, because he wanted an outlet for his rage.

I believe he worked there long before the shooting doing something with submarines.

Yes, in that they tried to exercise power over him by intimidating him, and trying to rob him. However, that was not the point I was making. My point was that Goetz had a problem following the rules including not carrying a concealed weapon.

No there was far more circumstantial evident that he did it. Of course, that’s not conclusive proof, but it was the only logical explanation proposed by the author.

63

Legally, yes he is. Morally, as I mentioned, is another issue.

I would describe deciding to rob a stranger as “cold blooded”. Shooting people in self-defense tends more to the “hot blooded” side.

Yes, he had a gun, which the system told him he should not have had.

Seems to have been in this case, at least to some extent.

Sharpton is a race-baiter and an idiot. It is usually a safe bet, in my opinion, to assume that he is saying or doing something stupid until proven otherwise.

No, crimes they committed before the Goetz robbery, IIRC.

Not exactly. That they committed crimes before and after the Goetz attack is an indication that they were committing crimes during the Goetz attack as well.

These were bad doers. They got shot in the course of committing a crime. Which makes it somewhat harder to be sympathetic to them, even if the one who shot them over-reacted, or failed to stop shooting on a dime.

I’d say he is considerably worse. Think Tawana Brawley.

I’m sorry, but saying you are inviting an attack by sitting down in an empty subway seat near four black teen agers is pretty silly. I imagine if he had chosen to move away from the four, some people would say he was a racist asshole. But he didn’t, and they attacked him. So he is a racist asshole anyway.

Some days, you just can’t win.

Wow. First anyone who sits on the subway is to be blamed if he is attacked. Now everyone who lives on 14th St. is a potential vigilante and murderer.

Also quite silly. I object to being robbed. Therefore I “have problems with authority”?

No one gave these four assholes the authority to rob or intimidate anyone. They had no right to surround Goetz, force him to sit elsewhere on the subway, or rob him. That’s part of what we mean when we say that robbery is a crime.

You did know, did you not, that he had applied for a concealed carry permit, just as the rules stated he should. And it was only after it was denied that he carried anyway. And, as it turned out, he was going to need his gun to defend against muggers.

Regards,
Shodan

64

This is ridiculous. His choice of seats marks him as a predator searching prey? His apartment choice (cheap neighborhood, which tend to be seedier) paints him as a cross-burning KKK-wannabe? Sounds like you and your author are doing the same thing - assigning motives to Bernard Goetz that you want him to have (or, in the author’s case, would help sell books). Maybe Goetz was trolling for a fight. Maybe he was a ticking time bomb. It’s been 20+ years though, so maybe it’s a better analogy to say he’s a volcano that’s erupted once and lies dormant again.
He was controlled enough to wait until he was actually accosted. I can’t find, online, any indication on how long he was carrying a pistol before this incident. I’d be more inclined to believe he was spoiling for some good ol’ fashioned vigilantism if it was the first time he ventured into the subway armed.

I noticed there’s another book about Goetz, one by a juror on his trial who says he was swayed away from convicting Goetz. Have you read that, perhaps to get a feeling as to why the jury felt Goetz was not guilty.

On Sharpton, he’s matured in the last decade or so. At that time, as Shodan says, he was a race-baiter who ignored facts in his relentless pursuit to protect and defend the black man. Unfortunately, he usually ended up doing more harm than good. Goetz was training for his spectacular flame out on Tawana Brawley.

I don’t like Goetz. I don’t like that people look at Goetz and hold him up as an example of the benefits of concealed carry. I don’t want concealed or unconcealed carry; I don’t want shootouts on the subway every time two people race for a seat. But I also don’t like being a robbery victim; it’s a helpless feeling (and I wasn’t mugged, just house broken into - I can see how even more emasculating being mugged would feel). Goetz was being mugged (and don’t fool yourselves into thinking he wasn’t - any frequent subway rider over the last 20 years knows better) and he stood up for himself. He was overzealous. Still, the prey bit back against the predator. I really don’t think that the predator (Goetz) was searching prey.

65

I don’t agree that more people behaving like Goetz would result in fewer muggers. In fact, I would argue that Goetz’s actions would only result in better armed and more vicious muggers. Either argument is pointless sophistry, since there is no scientific study showing a cause and effect result of Goetz’s (or similar) actions.

I’m not saying Goetz shouldn’t have shot these kids. Like I said in my first post, I was not in the subway car nor was I in the jury box, so I won’t pass judgement on the guy. I will say (and have said) that if it was necessary for him to shoot those kids, it was a regrettable act that shouldn’t be lauded or celebrated. And if it was necessary, it was still not morally correct, any more than cannibalism in the Andes is morally correct. Goetz of course has to protect himself, so he should do what he needs to assure his safety only. It certainly isn’t up to him to determine if they (as you say) “deserved it” or not.

66

I’m not sure that this adds much, but Goetz was on a radio show on XM radio about a month ago with Opie and Anthony (shock jocks). They played a fairly mild prank on him and smashed a CD, and made Goetz think that it was some CD he had brought with him (it wasn’t). Goetz went absolutely berzerk. Security had to be called in, and the guy was making threats as he stormed out. I watched the video, and it’s pretty clear that the guy is easily enraged and prone to somewhat disproportionate responses.

I guess that many would have an easier time accepting that he did the right thing to do if it was you or me, and not Goetz, who seems a little bit insane.

67

There’s a really interesting discussion of the Goetz case in one of Malcolm Gladwell’s books–The Tipping Point, if I’m not mistaken. (I find some of Gladwell’s conclusions doubtful, but he’s quite an entertaining writer if you’re into pop-psych.) He makes a lot of the same points that Mehitabel made–that is, that New York at that time had extremely high crime levels, dangerous subways, and was pervaded by a general atmosphere of fear. Within the context of the times, it’s not at all unreasonable that Goetz should have been acquitted and, indeed, hailed as a hero for his actions. And, since we don’t face even remotely the same circumstances in the present day, it’s pretty well incomprehensible to us that the case should have turned out the way it did.

So I don’t know…I’m not sure what I think unless you’re capable of bamfing me back to that time and place, putting me in the subway with a gun in my pocket, confronting me with some potentially-threatening youths, and just letting the sparks fly. It’s terribly difficult to have even the remotest idea of what one would do in a particular situation unless one is actually confronted with that situation. In our armchairs safe at home, we all like to think we’re capable of hiding Anne Frank in the attic, operating an Underground Railroad station, and getting out of the dangerous subway without conflict. In real life, however…who knows?

68

La Llorona, that is exactly why I don’t play “what if?” or “what would you do?” games. That said, I’ll reiterate what I said before. In Goetz’ position, I would have gotten myself killed because I have no skill or training using a firearm.

I had lived in the city prior, and was a frequent visitor to the city around the time of the Goetz shooting. Quite often I’d crash at my friend’s dorm rather than face a subway ride to Penn Station to return home at night. Today, I’m more comfortable on late rides, but I’m also older, smarter and I usually have enought cash to opt for a cab if it’s too late. One just doesn’t get the feeling that the inmates are running the jail any longer.

[b’Fiveyearlurker**, I’ll have to take your word for it, but it certainly wouldn’t be beyond O&A to stage something like that. Goetz has acted before. If he is so quick to anger and prone to disproportionate responses, he’s certainly kept it to himself these past 20 years.

69

What? It’s not incomprehensible at all. From the variety of reactions on this board, it seems pretty clear that there are many people who think Goetz did the right thing. A lot of people feel that if you are threatened you have the right to fight back. That hasn’t changed just because NY is a safer place.

There was a case in D.C. recently where a high school kid shot another and was not convicted for it because he claimed self-defense:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/12/14/AR2005032500039_pf.html

The details are murky in this case, too, but at least there is still a feeling in juries that if a person can reasonably claim he was threatened then he will not be convicted for shooting someone.

70

Absolutely correct. And yet people still think that the shooter should be able to “wing” the bad guy or shoot the gun out of his had a la The Lone Ranger. They obviously have never had to fire a weapon while under stress bad enough to make you pee your pants, or worse. I believe the expression is “shit through a screen door and not touch the wire”.

71

I still see it this way: Goetz was riding the subway (for which he had paid fare), and minding his own business. Four juvenile criminals (who were carrying concealed weapons) surrounded Goetz and began to threaten him. He was in a very dangerous situation (no policemen around), and was put in fear of his life. To me, he was justified in doing everything he could to protect himself. To put it mildly, yes, he was justified in blowing away those punks.
As the saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. I don’t think Goetz would have rated a line in the NY Times, had his bloody corpse been found on a subway car. So why is there so much concern for these little angels? NYC is better off without them.

72

For the record, he did a very poor job of “blowing away those punks”. They all lived. The one that raised the most furor, the one over whom Goetz stood and made his infamous statement, was paralyzed. The others went on to further distinguish themselves within the NY penal system.

73

I disagree. A jury can say your actions should not be punished, it doesn’t necessarily mean what you did wasn’t against the law.

They are both cold blooded. How could you think shooting a helpless unarmed man is perfectly fine?

So you are admitting he broke the law when he felt like it?

You’re entitled to your opinion.

Perhaps, except that your initial comment was regarding crimes they committed after the fact. You are changing the argument.

OK, doesn’t mean Goetz didn’t break the law.

Think it happened 18 years ago, get over it.

Nice try. It has nothing to do with them being black and everything to do with them being rowdy and obnoxious. Why was everyone else on the other side of the train? Were they all racists? NO, they recognized the situation for what it was, and took proper precautions. He didn’t sit down near them, he sat directly across. That, all by itself, may not be such a huge sign. But when coupled with his other actions and his complete disregard for the rules and propriety in other situations, I think it can be argued that he was looking for trouble.

That’s not what I said. First, he was not attacked. They may have been planning on attacking him, but they did not. Second, his history leads one to believe his actions were not as innocuous as you make them seem. When you write a book on Goetz, or even study his character the way the author did, then maybe you can legitimately dismiss her claims.

No, you have problems with authority when you continually break the rules and substitute your judgment for the judgment of people in charge.

I agree, but nobody gave Goetz the authority to carry a concealed weapon in a public place and to use it to try to kill 4 people.

You can’t be that dense. He clearly did not follow the rules because he carried a gun he was not authorized to. Both you and he seem to think you only have to follow the laws when you agree with them. That’s not how it works. You already stated you’d act like a pathetic coward in a similar situation by running and hiding. I don’t know if I’m more surprised at your disregard for the law or your lack of respect for human life. I would never try to defend those kids because they were and are scumbags. But so is Goetz. He was a racist thug with no respect for the law. All the them are cancers to society. Everything in Goetz’s past suggests a violent eruption was unavoidable. Treating him like a hero is terribly misguided.

74

[Moderator Hat ON]

All right, brickbacon, back off on your comments to Shodan or take it to the Pit.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

75

I agree, brickbacon. I only have to follow the laws when I agree with them.
I do, however, have to accept whatever penalties come when I willfully decide to break a law, because my personal morality says that I must.
Is there something wrong with that?

76

If a law is denying you one of your natural rights (say, the right to defend oneself), then that law is unust and there is no moral obligation to follow it.

Also, on the Sharpton issue, I’ll get over my hatred of him for his shameful behavior in the Brawley case as soon as he apologizes. He continues to defend his actions there and he should be condemned accodingly.

77

Here you are just making things up.

Could you please cut and paste where I said the last shot was perfectly fine? I seem to remember mentioning that I thought it was unjustified a time or two.

No, I am afraid not. I made no mention of timelines - that was your assumption.

And the Goetz shootings were longer ago than that. And yet you don’t seem to be able to “get over it”.

Nope, in the eyes of Sharpton and the other race pimps it has everything to do with them being black. If Goetz were black and the attackers white, Sharpton and the rest of the bottom feeders would be falling all over themselves screaming - at the attackers. Swap the races, and the attitude reverses, instantly.

And, as has been mentioned, Goetz’ judgement as to whether or not he needed to carry a weapon was better than those who denied his application. He thought he needed it, they thought he did not. He did, and the jury in his criminal trial agreed with him.

Again, the jury found that the use of the weapon was justified, but the possession was not. Which, as I mention for the last time, is senseless.

First one to start flaming loses.

We’re done here.

Regards,
Shodan

78

Really? My first response was to this comment you made.

Do you have a different definition of subsequent? I said the fact that they were subsequently convicted of crimes was irrelevant. You said it established motive, then you switched your argument. You specifically mentioned crimes they committed after the Goetz shooting which have nothing to do with this case. Please pay closer attention next time.

Regards,

Brick

79

Does this apply when those resposible for enforcing the law have failed?

80

Then you appeal to a higher authority. That’s why we have a system of checks and balances. But I don’t think those enforcing the law had failed, and those who say otherwise are disparaging many brave, underpaid and overworked police officers who daily put their lives on the line to provide the rest of us safety. If you think there should have been more cops on the street, then you should vote for someone who will raise your taxes to fund them.

At the same time, factor into your thinking how we learn about stories like Goetz from a media that has a vested interest in convincing us that there is something desperately wrong with the system. News organizations write the stories that sell best, not the stories which are most relevant. How many stories have you read about the muggings the police prevented the day Goetz pulled his gun? I certainly haven’t seen any. Reading media reports about Goetz and concluding the system is broken is like reading comic books and concluding the laws of physics are flawed.