Revisiting the Bernard Goetz scenario
- Thread starter pfch1977
- Start date
and a little more insurance in terms of not needing a reload.One more time: words by a bad guy, in the act of committing a crime are worthless. The 5 dollar request is to distract, or, to get your wallet out. Do you REALLY think these scumbags,
wait, it just dawned on me, you don't know what wonderful folks these guys were. Here, from the same Wikpedia article:
Goetz had on two prior occassions brandished, and not shot. I believe his perception of the group attacking him was correct:
Pretty sure that the bad guys didn't have finger prints in the system. As soon as they acosted Goetz, prints go into the system, and, they start matching up for unsolved robberies and rapes...
Last edited:
In the idealistic world of true 2A rights Goetz would not need to worry about being charged with illegally carrying a firearm.
I do, however, have a problem with Goetz's mindset. His statements of intent "If I had had more [bullets], I would have shot them again, and again, and again." seem to indicate a desire for revenge or vengance and one seemingly out of proportion to the incident.
In short, I think the Goetz case is a poor example of self-defense in a legal sense.
With regards to the thugs, "Give me five dollars" is not a request or a plea, but a demand. There's little doubt that a negative answer might very well have resulted in a beating, stabbing or other serious injury. Words are not necessarily worthless, as a previous poster indicated. Had the thug's words been "Could you spare five dollars for me?" the words themselves might have indicated simple panhandling. It could have muddied the waters a bit more for Goetz to establish intent.
As far as the OP's question, it's very likely that in a similar situation, armed with a 5-shooter, the first or closest antagonist will get one round and we then proceed round-robin style until all subjects have been hit. The remaining shot is awarded to the first subject displaying a need for a follow-up shot. Also note that the subjects wounded in the side or back should not be viewed as "fleeing" or showing "proof" that they were disengaging from the conflict. Turning to take cover in such a limited area would result in similar injuries. And it's doubtful that a turn would have been perceived by Goetz as a "retreat" in such CQB in time to hold his fire.
I do, however, have a problem with Goetz's mindset. His statements of intent "If I had had more [bullets], I would have shot them again, and again, and again." seem to indicate a desire for revenge or vengance and one seemingly out of proportion to the incident.
In short, I think the Goetz case is a poor example of self-defense in a legal sense.
With regards to the thugs, "Give me five dollars" is not a request or a plea, but a demand. There's little doubt that a negative answer might very well have resulted in a beating, stabbing or other serious injury. Words are not necessarily worthless, as a previous poster indicated. Had the thug's words been "Could you spare five dollars for me?" the words themselves might have indicated simple panhandling. It could have muddied the waters a bit more for Goetz to establish intent.
As far as the OP's question, it's very likely that in a similar situation, armed with a 5-shooter, the first or closest antagonist will get one round and we then proceed round-robin style until all subjects have been hit. The remaining shot is awarded to the first subject displaying a need for a follow-up shot. Also note that the subjects wounded in the side or back should not be viewed as "fleeing" or showing "proof" that they were disengaging from the conflict. Turning to take cover in such a limited area would result in similar injuries. And it's doubtful that a turn would have been perceived by Goetz as a "retreat" in such CQB in time to hold his fire.
Goetz had been mugged twice before. It is possible this was the same group that got him one of the first times...
They were NOT nice people.
I also don't trust the press reporting, at all.
Wonder if the appellate case has a statement of fact?
Go here:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/cover.htm
then search for trial name, and you'll get the appellate case, and statement of facts.
Can't get the link to work to the actual case.
People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96 (Jul 08, 1986)
After reading the statement of fact from the case two things become clear:
Goezt should NEVER have talked to the police without council present. From his statement, at least looking back at it now, maybe he was insane, or at least that's what you must think to have told the police such stuff.
It certainly gives a clear point for directional pepper spray prior to using a gun...
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/nygoetz.htm
They were NOT nice people.
I also don't trust the press reporting, at all.
Wonder if the appellate case has a statement of fact?
Go here:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/cover.htm
then search for trial name, and you'll get the appellate case, and statement of facts.
Can't get the link to work to the actual case.
People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96 (Jul 08, 1986)
After reading the statement of fact from the case two things become clear:
Goezt should NEVER have talked to the police without council present. From his statement, at least looking back at it now, maybe he was insane, or at least that's what you must think to have told the police such stuff.
It certainly gives a clear point for directional pepper spray prior to using a gun...
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/nygoetz.htm
Last edited:
LanceOregon
Moderator
I think that many of us are aware that Goetz was twice brutally mugged. After all, he did not even get the handgun after the first mugging. He only obtained it after he was mugged yet a second time.
And I think that everyone agrees that these men that tangled with him were no good trash. Heck, charges were even dismissed at one point against Goetz, because some of these men committed further crimes after this incident.
Goetz's biggest mistake was making so many racially charged statements to people after his first two muggings. Referring to black people as "niggers", and saying how much you hate them, is not going to look good at all if you later then shoot a black person. Your words then come back to haunt you.
Perhaps Goetz was not like that before his muggings, as all the statements cited in the civil case took place after he was beaten and robbed those two times.
Goetz clearly was a victim. But some of his actions really made life difficult for him.
.
And I think that everyone agrees that these men that tangled with him were no good trash. Heck, charges were even dismissed at one point against Goetz, because some of these men committed further crimes after this incident.
Goetz's biggest mistake was making so many racially charged statements to people after his first two muggings. Referring to black people as "niggers", and saying how much you hate them, is not going to look good at all if you later then shoot a black person. Your words then come back to haunt you.
Perhaps Goetz was not like that before his muggings, as all the statements cited in the civil case took place after he was beaten and robbed those two times.
Goetz clearly was a victim. But some of his actions really made life difficult for him.
.
Last edited:
There is a lot to be learned from this incident and that’s why I posted the thread.
One thing that I took away from it was Goetz’s statements to the police. The statements he made to the police made him look very bad. However, we have to look at this realistically.
It has been my experience that police officers use pressure tactics to coerce statements from the tax paying citizenry. On a traffic stop, for example, they shine bright flashlights in your face, use aggressive sarcastic tones and their hands are always on their pistols. When an officer questions someone in an interigation room its not that much different. Every police station has a little windowless room with a bright light overhead. They usually have the suspect wait in this little windowless room for hours and then an aggressively sounding foul mouthed detective comes in to question you. Sometimes they turn the heat up in the little room or make it extra cold. They do whatever they can to make it uncomfortable for you.
So were Goetz’s statements to the police unusual? I would have to say no. I would believe that the police probably used coercive interrogation tactics. They probably sat him in an uncomfortable chair in a small hot windowless room for hours handcuffed and with an aggressive fast talking detective and bright lights overhead. Under the circumstances, he was probably very nervous and just babbled on and on not really knowing exactly what he was saying.
Another thing I have learned about police is that they have selective hearing. They will hear one thing that you say and note it down, but other things that you say are not noted down or considered.
The one golden rule about police is that they cannot be trusted under any circumstances. When they are around, you never say a word to them. If they ask questions, then you kindly state that you would like to exercise your right of silence. They will probably attempt to use coercive tactics with flashlights and aggressive tones. This is to be expected.
Whenever you use your weapon, then the prosecutor and police will find anyway they can to charge you with a crime no matter what the circumstances might be. That’s disappointing considering that there are stipulations in the U.S. Constitution stating of the right to bear arms and protect one’s self. My opinion is that the government has selective reading when it comes to that document where they will follow one part of the Constitution, but side-step other parts.
Knowing that the police and prosecutor would probably place you in jail for some type of charge, would you have turned yourself in if there was a good chance you could get away?
There are 2 million Americans imprisoned by the government with many who were wrongfully placed behind bars and DNA evidence being used to release them everyday. If I shot 4 men in self-defense, then I would surely not turn myself in and become another byproduct of a system and join the hundreds of thousands of victims of the US criminal justice system. Would I receive a fair trial? No I wouldn’t. In fact, I believe that if I were in Russia or Iraq, then my actions would be understood and no trial would occur, but in the US you get jailed and probably convicted for defending yourself. That’s how it works here.
One thing that I took away from it was Goetz’s statements to the police. The statements he made to the police made him look very bad. However, we have to look at this realistically.
It has been my experience that police officers use pressure tactics to coerce statements from the tax paying citizenry. On a traffic stop, for example, they shine bright flashlights in your face, use aggressive sarcastic tones and their hands are always on their pistols. When an officer questions someone in an interigation room its not that much different. Every police station has a little windowless room with a bright light overhead. They usually have the suspect wait in this little windowless room for hours and then an aggressively sounding foul mouthed detective comes in to question you. Sometimes they turn the heat up in the little room or make it extra cold. They do whatever they can to make it uncomfortable for you.
So were Goetz’s statements to the police unusual? I would have to say no. I would believe that the police probably used coercive interrogation tactics. They probably sat him in an uncomfortable chair in a small hot windowless room for hours handcuffed and with an aggressive fast talking detective and bright lights overhead. Under the circumstances, he was probably very nervous and just babbled on and on not really knowing exactly what he was saying.
Another thing I have learned about police is that they have selective hearing. They will hear one thing that you say and note it down, but other things that you say are not noted down or considered.
The one golden rule about police is that they cannot be trusted under any circumstances. When they are around, you never say a word to them. If they ask questions, then you kindly state that you would like to exercise your right of silence. They will probably attempt to use coercive tactics with flashlights and aggressive tones. This is to be expected.
Whenever you use your weapon, then the prosecutor and police will find anyway they can to charge you with a crime no matter what the circumstances might be. That’s disappointing considering that there are stipulations in the U.S. Constitution stating of the right to bear arms and protect one’s self. My opinion is that the government has selective reading when it comes to that document where they will follow one part of the Constitution, but side-step other parts.
Knowing that the police and prosecutor would probably place you in jail for some type of charge, would you have turned yourself in if there was a good chance you could get away?
There are 2 million Americans imprisoned by the government with many who were wrongfully placed behind bars and DNA evidence being used to release them everyday. If I shot 4 men in self-defense, then I would surely not turn myself in and become another byproduct of a system and join the hundreds of thousands of victims of the US criminal justice system. Would I receive a fair trial? No I wouldn’t. In fact, I believe that if I were in Russia or Iraq, then my actions would be understood and no trial would occur, but in the US you get jailed and probably convicted for defending yourself. That’s how it works here.
One thing that one certainly gets from Geotz, and the appellate court:
"No comment"
is VERY hard to change into racial slurs, false statements, etc. A good attorney would never have allowed him to say one word to anyone on the issue, for the rest of his life. In fact, if he hadn't shot off his mouth, the first grand jury would have stood...
You notice the appellate 'facts' don't list the reasoning behind throwing some of the charges out, that in fact, the 'boys' had, once finger printed, been tied to rapes and robberies...
It is REALLY clear that a facist-liberal view of the event can clearly turn the facts of the case on their head, ignoring facts, and exculpatory evidence, and making the case in the way they want it made. It's also quite clear the court was pandering to racial pressure...
When was Rodney King?
"No comment"
is VERY hard to change into racial slurs, false statements, etc. A good attorney would never have allowed him to say one word to anyone on the issue, for the rest of his life. In fact, if he hadn't shot off his mouth, the first grand jury would have stood...
You notice the appellate 'facts' don't list the reasoning behind throwing some of the charges out, that in fact, the 'boys' had, once finger printed, been tied to rapes and robberies...
It is REALLY clear that a facist-liberal view of the event can clearly turn the facts of the case on their head, ignoring facts, and exculpatory evidence, and making the case in the way they want it made. It's also quite clear the court was pandering to racial pressure...
When was Rodney King?
Last edited:
Goetz fabricated quite a bit of what he claimed motivated him after the fact. He wasn't the most stable of individuals, so when the police declared the shooter to be a mad animal, he took that to heart.
There are lessons to be learned, including not running and keeping one's mouth shut. If he'd done those two things, Goetz might have been a textbook case for the necessity defense to a charge of illegally carrying a weapon.
Sounds like you're a man of experience. I guess you've been in that room a time or two.
Although I agree you should talk to a lawyer before you speak to police, negative blanket statements about all police amount to whining and usually reflect somone with a personal bone to pick.
"They moved to block him from escape and according to witnesses were aggressive and threatening.............in this scenario I'm forced to draw and fire."
And you might be looking at murder charges, too. In SC, you can NOT draw and fire to stop simple assault. You MUST be in fear of your life, another's life, or GRAVE bodily injury. Since the youths were showing no weapons, Goetz can not say that.
Whether the shooting was legal or not has been determined in the courts. Whether Goetz went "hunting" will never be known, unless he talks truthfully.
Whether he rid the community of some pond scum is not arguable.
And you might be looking at murder charges, too. In SC, you can NOT draw and fire to stop simple assault. You MUST be in fear of your life, another's life, or GRAVE bodily injury. Since the youths were showing no weapons, Goetz can not say that.
Whether the shooting was legal or not has been determined in the courts. Whether Goetz went "hunting" will never be known, unless he talks truthfully.
Whether he rid the community of some pond scum is not arguable.
The concept of disparity of force allows a person faced with multiple assailants to argue there was a legitimate threat, even if no weapon was visible.
Besides, Goetz knew that there was at least one firearm in the mix, namely the one he was carrying. Assailants with no visible weapons can reasonably be anticipated to be intending to physically assault you, and that can easily lead to discovery of the weapon.
Perhaps. However I don't base my self preservation on what I might face criminally or civilly. If I am in fear of death or serious bodily injury I will defend myself. IYO what is the difference between aggressive panhandling and robbery? How many attackers are needed for you to be at risk of great bodily injury? How could you retreat from the danger?
IMO they are attempting a strong armed robbery with the threat of what amounts to potential great bodily injury or death and I have no way to escape. Thus I have no choice but to comply or defend myself. Since I have no delusions of being able to beat 2 men at a time much less 4 men, I will be beaten down (great bodily injury).
Goetz was correct in his assumption that they were going to rob him as one of the yoots said that they planned to rob him. Lets not forget the signal they gave each other before they blocked his escape. That alone tends to support what Goetz feared.
ClassicSWC
New member
It's amazing how many tough guys there are in the world who would fault Goetz for being in fear of his life in that situation.
The standard is, was he in fear of his life. In a given circumstance, that is going to be different for a 90lb., 75yr old woman vs. George Foreman.
Although it is illegal, I can't fault him for his trying a "coup 'de grace" on the one scumbag. If the roles were reversed, how much mercy would they have given him? IMO, when the shooting starts, all bets are off. Sort of like when Paul Newman wants to get the rules straight for the knife fight. "Rules? In a knife fight?" Gimme a break.
The standard is, was he in fear of his life. In a given circumstance, that is going to be different for a 90lb., 75yr old woman vs. George Foreman.
Although it is illegal, I can't fault him for his trying a "coup 'de grace" on the one scumbag. If the roles were reversed, how much mercy would they have given him? IMO, when the shooting starts, all bets are off. Sort of like when Paul Newman wants to get the rules straight for the knife fight. "Rules? In a knife fight?" Gimme a break.
bushidomosquito
New member
"43 million dollar civil suit"
Screw that. Time to move to mexico and start over.
Screw that. Time to move to mexico and start over.
Classic, I don't know if its tough guy syndrome or just a lack of understanding as to what 4 adult males can do and how fast they can do it. Folks see a bruce lee flick and think that their green belt should allow them to fight off 3 or 4 guys no problem. Even highly trained fighters would have their hands full with more than 1 adult male in a confined space.
This is a joke I hope.
The REAL problem with this case was the Goetz running off at the mouth, and filing appellate briefs, in retrospect, were a serious mistake. It often happens that a lower court will give the person a wrist slap sentence. When appealed, the case comes back, and, the sentencing is ordered to comply with the guidelines in law, that the sentencing judge may have ignored, figuring the case would not ever go to the appellate court.
When the appellate court sends it back, it CHANGES the ruling on reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Prior, it was totally based, real or not, on the belief of the person being attacked. With the Goetz case, they add an
'objective', after the fact component. In other words, the court gives itself the right to throw the defense out, if, while sitting in their comfy chambers, the judge, or judges feel the victim over-reacted.
I've been in a similar spot, cornered by 3 huge, and I mean 6 3 and above, 250 pounds and above black men, in a bathroom, by myself. Simply coke and alcohol, making them want to beat up the white guy, since they think he's a friend of the manager that just threw them out of the bowling alley. I survived, with about 15 stiches, from getting hit over the head with a Walther PPKS. My martial arts training saved me. Wonder how many others here would have simply been dead or beaten to a pulp in the bathroom? I REALLY don't like the Monday morning quarterback stuff, since you have to make a decision based on the initial event, being cornered, and how you are going to deal with it. That choice is instantly changed when the guy whips open the coat, and you see the gun. It happens in under a second...
Goetz made his decision, based on prior experience, and, from subsequent testimony, he was right: the guys intended to rob him, and rob has a component of physical violence. 4-5 on one can maim and kill you, if the guys know what they are doing, very quickly...
When the appellate court sends it back, it CHANGES the ruling on reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Prior, it was totally based, real or not, on the belief of the person being attacked. With the Goetz case, they add an
'objective', after the fact component. In other words, the court gives itself the right to throw the defense out, if, while sitting in their comfy chambers, the judge, or judges feel the victim over-reacted.
I've been in a similar spot, cornered by 3 huge, and I mean 6 3 and above, 250 pounds and above black men, in a bathroom, by myself. Simply coke and alcohol, making them want to beat up the white guy, since they think he's a friend of the manager that just threw them out of the bowling alley. I survived, with about 15 stiches, from getting hit over the head with a Walther PPKS. My martial arts training saved me. Wonder how many others here would have simply been dead or beaten to a pulp in the bathroom? I REALLY don't like the Monday morning quarterback stuff, since you have to make a decision based on the initial event, being cornered, and how you are going to deal with it. That choice is instantly changed when the guy whips open the coat, and you see the gun. It happens in under a second...
Goetz made his decision, based on prior experience, and, from subsequent testimony, he was right: the guys intended to rob him, and rob has a component of physical violence. 4-5 on one can maim and kill you, if the guys know what they are doing, very quickly...
vox rationis
New member
I agree with Socrates:
I think that the $5 dollar request can be called "the interview" and this is where the thugs size you up and distract you to see what they are against. It is also an intimidation tactic and a "set up", especially in this scenario as there were lots of them against one. Once Goetz produced his wallet they would have assaulted him with a boot party and stolen the wallet, or perhaps,if they were especially sadistic, with a truly life threatening stomping. If Goetz said, "sorry I don't have $5 dollars" then that would have given the opportunity for the thugs to get feelings of "indignation" and establish the grounds for the assault that was coming.
I also think that when 4 or 5 guys coalesce around you in an obviously threatening manner, and this was Goetz's call based on his experiences and on being there in person, one can become extremely fearful for one's safety, and perhaps even life. Disparity of force issues should definitely be considered here.
Ultimately it is hard to second guess whether or not Goetz did the right thing or not. He was there and he chose his course of action based on the cards that he was dealt. Now perhaps Goetz should have waited for the assault to begin in earnest before drawing the gun to shoot, but on the other hand then he'd be one strike away from being knocked out and then at the complete mercy of the thugs. They could just have easily then stomped him on his way to death.
I'm not sure what the "perfect" way to have handled that situation would have been. Maybe brandishing would have made the scatter, but then again, maybe not, and in close quarters against multiple assailants at arms reach, he could just as easily been disarmed (mall ninjas please refrain from telling me how you would have done the double secret weapon retention move at this point).
So, given those circumstances it seems to me that it is reasonable that Goetz, if afraid of being seriously maimed and once he made the commitment to shoot to defend himself, once he drew the gun, might have felt that, tactically, there was no other choice but to shoot.
But obviously he really complicated matters by issuing his terribly misjudged comments after the shooting.
p.s. here's an interesting site about the dynamics of violent crime
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html (click on the individual 5 stages of violent crime for some interesting reading)
I think that the $5 dollar request can be called "the interview" and this is where the thugs size you up and distract you to see what they are against. It is also an intimidation tactic and a "set up", especially in this scenario as there were lots of them against one. Once Goetz produced his wallet they would have assaulted him with a boot party and stolen the wallet, or perhaps,if they were especially sadistic, with a truly life threatening stomping. If Goetz said, "sorry I don't have $5 dollars" then that would have given the opportunity for the thugs to get feelings of "indignation" and establish the grounds for the assault that was coming.
I also think that when 4 or 5 guys coalesce around you in an obviously threatening manner, and this was Goetz's call based on his experiences and on being there in person, one can become extremely fearful for one's safety, and perhaps even life. Disparity of force issues should definitely be considered here.
Ultimately it is hard to second guess whether or not Goetz did the right thing or not. He was there and he chose his course of action based on the cards that he was dealt. Now perhaps Goetz should have waited for the assault to begin in earnest before drawing the gun to shoot, but on the other hand then he'd be one strike away from being knocked out and then at the complete mercy of the thugs. They could just have easily then stomped him on his way to death.
I'm not sure what the "perfect" way to have handled that situation would have been. Maybe brandishing would have made the scatter, but then again, maybe not, and in close quarters against multiple assailants at arms reach, he could just as easily been disarmed (mall ninjas please refrain from telling me how you would have done the double secret weapon retention move at this point).
So, given those circumstances it seems to me that it is reasonable that Goetz, if afraid of being seriously maimed and once he made the commitment to shoot to defend himself, once he drew the gun, might have felt that, tactically, there was no other choice but to shoot.
But obviously he really complicated matters by issuing his terribly misjudged comments after the shooting.
p.s. here's an interesting site about the dynamics of violent crime
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html (click on the individual 5 stages of violent crime for some interesting reading)
This question gets asked on these boards all the time. And people often offer definitive answers. I say it isn't a "black & white" issue.
If your follow-up shots require two or three second, yeah - give every target one shot before transitioning to other threats.
But if your splits (shot-to-shot times) are more like .17-.18 seconds, you may well be better off getting a second (or third) bullet into each threat before turning your attention to the next one.