Bernie Goetz and Joe Horn


PDA






lloydkristmas
July 12, 2008, 01:28 PM
Now I'm a youngster, and just stumbled across the story of New York's Bernie "The Subway Killer" Goetz, having never heard it before. It seems like that case was pretty divisive, with issues like racism, vigilantism, etc being brought up. Like the more recent Joe Horn case, Goetz pretty much avoided legal trouble, but was still the target of scorn (and praise) by lots of people. Seems like in both cases, the possibility of being in danger was enough to justify shooting. Sounds good enough for me.

Any of you older guys remember the Goetz case? What do you think about it from a "High Road"/Self-Defense perspective? I'm bored, maybe this will spark an interesting discussion.


In case anybody isnt familiar with the Goetz shooting(s) click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Goetz

If you enjoyed reading about "Bernie Goetz and Joe Horn" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
svtruth
July 12, 2008, 01:33 PM
of the Goetz case by a thread on here about nerds being pro gun. Bernie was a computer consultant, IIRC.

Just Jim
July 12, 2008, 01:36 PM
I remember Goetz and the shooting. Seems it was on the NY subway where Goetz had been accosted too many times to let it keep on going. I believe he shot three BGs with an unregisterd gun, a big no no in NY.

I have seen a story since the time of the shooting and they made a big deal about his financial condition. Too bad Goetz didn't use more gun, he could of saved the country from alot of crime.

jj

Owen Sparks
July 12, 2008, 01:42 PM
Even though Goetz was aquitted on criminal charges, he still got sued in civil court for a bazilion dollars by one surviving thug who ended up in a wheel chair.

The attitudes about individual liberty and property rights are vastly different in New York than in Texas. The right thing varies from place to place.

lloydkristmas
July 12, 2008, 01:48 PM
^^According to a recent interview on Opie and Anthony, Goetz said he "hasnt paid a dime" to the guy who was paralyzed. This was in 2004.

Just Jim
July 12, 2008, 01:49 PM
Horn still will go through alot. The men he killed were Columbian ganster and revenge is a real possibility. Plus if those illegals have any living realitives they will go after Horn for cash. At least the BGs won't ever bother anyone again.

jj

Just Jim
July 12, 2008, 01:50 PM
^^According to a recent interview on Opie and Anthony, Goetz said he "hasnt paid a dime" to the guy who was paralyzed. This was in 2004.

Back when he shot the guy the round was worth about a dime, all the money the BG deserves.

jj

csmkersh
July 12, 2008, 01:53 PM
Like Joe Horn, Goetz mouth got him in deep kimshi. Unlike Joe Horn, there was nothing in NYS law to protect him from a civil suit. Horn was no-billed by a grand jury and under the provisions of Texas' castle law, he's going to be awfully hard to sue. Goetz, OTH, had no such protection and his comments were used against him.

Just Jim
July 12, 2008, 01:56 PM
I wonder if the families of the bad guys will go after Horn for a violation of the BGs civil right--a federal thing??

jj

RecoilRob
July 12, 2008, 02:10 PM
I was unemployed for the couple of weeks Bernie spent in 'civil' court and got to watch it all on Court TV.

Pretty interesting/disgusting the way the whole trial went down. The only badguy who sued was paralyzed by Bernies last shot and his 'you don't look so bad. Here, have another' statement really got a lot of play. (Note to self: If I shoot someone, don't talk while doing it!)

Also, the fact that the other shoot-ees were ALL doing time for other armed robberies (maybe one was deceased...again, armed robbery) wasn't allowed into the preceedings. Only the poor paralyzed kid...who was going to be a doctor and wasn't doing anything but hanging around with his friends.....please.....

RPCVYemen
July 12, 2008, 02:21 PM
I wonder if the families of the bad guys will go after Horn for a violation of the BGs civil right--a federal thing??

Actually, I wondered the same thing. But as a non lawyer, I think that I recall those kinds of suits hinge on the denial of specific federal rights - like the right to vote.

So the fact that neither of the guys he shot were citizens may make a difference.

Can any laywers tell me whether or not I am totally off base on this?

I thought I recalled someone telling me that the theory that allows such suits may even be based on the 1968 Voting Rights Act - that in essence you were being sued for depriving someone of the right to vote (by killing them, you deny them the right to vote).

Mike

csmkersh
July 12, 2008, 03:44 PM
I thought I recalled someone telling me that the theory that allows such suits may even be based on the 1968 Voting Rights Act - that in essence you were being sued for depriving someone of the right to vote (by killing them, you deny them the right to vote).

Both of the deceased were illegal aliens and not eligible to vote but the Ds are working on that.

lloydkristmas
July 12, 2008, 04:16 PM
"You dont look so bad, have another"

Sounds like something out of a Punisher film haha

Aaron Baker
July 12, 2008, 04:22 PM
I haven't reviewed the Goetz case recently, but...

It just seems to me that if his attitude was "I haven't shot you enough, let's see if I can get one last shot in, execution-style," then he damn well should be in jail.

Hear me out. If I'm in a valid self-defense situation, I would certainly use my gun to defend myself, even if that meant shooting and possibly killing someone. But I'm going to do everything I can to avoid shooting in the first place.

And once I shoot, if the threat is neutralized, then I'll stop shooting. If I have time to even utter the words "here, have another," then there's no threat that justifies shooting.

Self-defense is a fundamental right, and I fully support it. Vigilante executions of criminals is not a right. If I cross that line, I should be punished, even if "they started it."

Aaron

jahwarrior
July 12, 2008, 04:26 PM
Even though Goetz was aquitted on criminal charges, he still got sued in civil court for a bazilion dollars by one surviving thug who ended up in a wheel chair.

he wasn't acquitted; he served almost a year in jail, if my memory serves. i remember the case, and my parents and their friends talking about it. civil rights leaders were in an uproar, talking about those "poor black youths" as victims, but that wasn't the case with the majority of people; crime was at an all-time high during that decade, and people were sick of it. there were a couple of other self-defense cases around that time; goetz was big news because jesse jackson and al sharpton made it so.

one case that comes to mind was a guy who killed a guy during a home invasion. he was home with his kids and pregnant wife, some guy broke in, and he shot him to death. he was found guilty of manslaughter 1, among other things, but he had his conviction overturned on appeal. what helped that was that the dead guy had a record that included armed robbery, attempted murder and rape.

don't believe what you hear or read about goetz; to most new yorkers, black, white or other, he was a hero.

Zoogster
July 12, 2008, 04:33 PM
"You dont look so bad, have another"

Sounds like something out of a Punisher film haha

Do keep in mind though when he said that his revolver was empty and he fired no more shots.
So he didn't fire a shot after saying that, but it was still influential.


The criminal involved admitted they were planning to rob him.
In fact when they ran across him they were busy traveling around with the tools to break into arcade machines and steal the coins, which is why they were on the subway.

They would have attacked him, and at least one was armed with a screwdriver. He defended himself but got caught up in the moment.

Goetz was in illegal possession of the firearm when he defended himself, which might have contributed to his willingness to go too far (if he had another round.)
He was charged for that illegal possession.


Joe Horn on the other hand was not defending himself (though arguably accounts could say he was from at least one of them.)
He was not willing to let his neighbor's home be victimized and went out to stop the bad guys from escaping with his neighbors property, planning to shoot from the moment he left his home if you listen to the 911 call.
Since he lives in Texas everything he did was legal, and whether it was self defense or not does not change that, so it was simply no billed.

Very different situations.

lloydkristmas
July 12, 2008, 04:35 PM
Very different situations.

The biggest difference is that the perps (except for the vegetable) in the Goetz case went on to commit more felonies, including muggings, robbery, and rape/sodomy of a pregnant woman. In the Horn case, the perps are dead. So whether or not either case fits the legal, technical description of "self defense", the Horn incident turned out more....successfully.

Novus Collectus
July 12, 2008, 04:48 PM
The difference between Goetz and Horn is Goetz was a criminal, but Horn was acting within the law and even supporting it.
While self defense is a human right and with Goetz that is a mitigating circumstance for his breaking the law and his actions might even be understandable, with Joe Horn he was in the right legally and IMO morally. Horn fired in what he thought was self defense at that moment and he confronted them within the law with a lawfully possessed weapon.

mnrivrat
July 12, 2008, 06:45 PM
And once I shoot, if the threat is neutralized, then I'll stop shooting.

With all do respect ,I don't think you can say exactly how it will go down if it happens to you - a lot of adrenilin , and a lot of anger for being put in the situation may end up spewing a lot of stuff out of your mouth .

Just saying until you face it - you can't completely judge it.

HK G3
July 12, 2008, 07:03 PM
The Goetz case sounds as if it was the inspiration for the film The Brave One

macadore
July 12, 2008, 07:08 PM
IIRC, Goetz was acquitted for the shooting but was convicted, and did time, for possessing a firearm. That always seemed bizarre to me. It was OK for him to shoot in self defense, but not OK to have a firearm with which to shoot.

Old Grump
July 12, 2008, 07:38 PM
So correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember Goetz traveled to California, checked into a hotel, used that as an address and bought the revolver as if he was a resident which he wasn't. Then he took his illegal gun and flew back to New York crossing several state lines with an illegal gun. Took it into New York and carried it unregistered. Self Defense is something he had a right to do but he deliberately skirted the law to arm himself and set himself up for exactly what happened. Thats why he got prosecuted. It also shows the weakness in New Yorks reasoning behind making it harder for civilians to get guns. If more people carried there wouldn't have had to be a Sub Way Vigilante because the gangs would have found easier prey somewhere else.

lloydkristmas
July 12, 2008, 07:42 PM
I live in Texas so I fortunately dont have to worry about silly New York laws, but if I had been continually victimized by criminals like Goetz had, I probably would have gone to whatever lengths possible to arm and defend myself. Once again the old adage.....better to be judged by twelve than carried by six, I guess...

Just Jim
July 12, 2008, 07:57 PM
Ironic how Goetz stood up like a man against his attackers and people here say he just didn't do it right. He won and 4 bad guys lost yet still people condem him. Tells us alot about how bad society is. Men have been nuetered buy socialism.

He may have had to go around the block to get his gun but he had the right to self defense by the constitution even if his rights where denied by NY. Thank God the Courts now say every man has a right to defend himself.

jj

HankB
July 12, 2008, 08:05 PM
As I remember the Goetz case, the only reason they caught him is that he was mouthing off about how HE was the subway vigilante, and someone overheard him and called the cops; when he heard they were looking for him, he turned himself in. If he'd kept his pie hole shut, there's a good chance that the Subway Vigilante would, to this day, be unknown.

The most odious part of the case is that when the DA decided to prosecute Goetz, he gave immunity to the guys who were going to rob him!

Standing Wolf
July 12, 2008, 08:27 PM
It seems like that case was pretty divisive, with issues like racism, vigilantism, etc being brought up.

Those were leftist extremist canards. 99.99% of the time when you hear the terms "racism," "vigilante," "wild west," "taking the law into their own hands," and the like, you're hearing lies.

I didn't say "mistakes." I said "lies."

Just Jim
July 12, 2008, 08:35 PM
Problem with Goetz was he lived in a girly man city where regular citizens had been nuetered from being men. By the time he realized he needed a gun and used it the girly man came out of him and was used to condem him.

The socialist have done everything possible to steal an average mans manhood. They have turned a mans family against him, taken his work from him along with his borders language and culture.

They had to beat Goetz down as an example to others who would fight back. They want it known that they rule in the city.

Now the socialist are parading Horn on the talk shows so they can condem him.

jj

DWFan
July 12, 2008, 09:11 PM
Anyone who says the victims don't have a right to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property are, by extrapolation, saying the perpetrators have the right to continue their activities against additional victims until caught by those who have the means to incarcerate and punish them that is specifically denied to the victims.
Who's side are you on America? The criminal's or their victims?
I have no problem putting down a dog for attacking me even though the attack will in all likelyhood not result in my death. The dog is only doing either what it is taught or what it's instinct's tell it to do.
Does a human being, with the capacity for moral judgements and logical thought and respect for other human beings and chooses to ignore that to prey against their fellow man, somehow deserve more respect from me than the dog which simply doesn't know any better?
The choice to involve oneself in criminal activities is a concious thought and decision. With that choice goes the decision to respect human rights or not. If the decision is not, then the human being lowers themselves to being an animal while not having even the excuse of the animal for their actions.

lloydkristmas
July 12, 2008, 09:16 PM
^yep, the human deserves even less of a chance. The dog doesnt know right from wrong, only what nature tells it to do. A human being is capable of pondering the results of their actions, so acting on them anyway and hurting others shows that one is unfit for the responsibility of, well, living.

jahwarrior
July 12, 2008, 09:19 PM
Then he took his illegal gun and flew back to New York crossing several state lines with an illegal gun. Took it into New York and carried it unregistered. Self Defense is something he had a right to do but he deliberately skirted the law to arm himself and set himself up for exactly what happened.

uh, that's how most otherwise law abiding new yorkers get their guns: illegally. my dad served in the army, was a decorated combat veteran, and still had to break the law to protect our family. my next door neighbors came from all walks of life: a holocaust survivor, a muslim pharmacist, a WWII navy vetran, an elementary school art teacher, a plumber, a national guardsman, a jehovah's witness family, a baptist preacher, the list goes on and on. try and guess how many of these people are technically criminals.

give up?

all of them, but the guardsman, were lawbreakers. they all "deliberately skirted the law to arm themselves," as you put it. one of the first things my parents did when they moved to PA was to obtain their LTCFs.

self defense isn't a privilege, as interpreted by NYC law, but a right, ordained by G*D, and ratified by the Constitution. don't forget that. mr goetz had the right to that gun, and to defend himself, even if he overreacted. like i said in an earlier post, the media demonized him, but the people hailed him as a hero.

joab
July 12, 2008, 09:33 PM
Actually the guns were bought in Florida from Ken's Guns and Florist,(Specializing in shotgun weddings) No kidding
That is all he was convicted of

I used to buy guns from Ken and he had to go to NY to testify

What got Goetz in trouble was the "You look tough, have another" remark and the fact that the "victims" had not yet threatened him
They asked for change while loosely surrounding him, a common diversionary tactic, and were carrying sharpened screw drivers, a common mugger's weapon, they all had records of robbery and theft
It was that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck circumstantial evidence plus Goetz's own previous experience as a mugging victim that pointed to an aborted mugging

Wow DWFan
Eloquent
My ex was living in NYC at the time and according to her the majority of subway riders celebrated his actions

Horn was in no danger whatsoever and could in no way claim that he was when he chose to confront the burglers
I would have thought that he would have been at least indicted if not convicted
The rules are different these days especially in Texas
Hopefully this sends a message not only to the criminals but to law abiding citizens that it is OK to protect yourself, your stuff and your neighbors and neighborhoods

Wow DWFan
Eloquent

FLA2760
July 12, 2008, 09:55 PM
I was living and working in NYC at the time. Myself and most of my friends/family were rooting for Goetz. This was a time that marauding groups of teens and felony 20 something's would engage in a practice that was called "wilding" . The object was to surround, terrorize,assault and rob innocent commuters on the subways and at bus stops. If I recall some of the "misunderstood youths" that Goetz shot were armed with sharpened screwdrivers. The pack of wilding youths usually was a minimum of three and as many as 10. Most people in NYC thought that Bernie Goetz made two mistakes. The first being that he did not use a .45 and the second that he turned himself in. Those packs of animals were able to go "wilding" with confidence due to the Nazi gun ban in NYC. There were instances where female victims were raped. The Central park jogger case was a high profile example of this. The law abiding people in NYC were easy prey for these mutts. I bet when Bernie pulled out his .38 the miscreants soiled themselves. The difference in the legal outcomes is that the Goetz shooting happened in an evil place that ignores the Constitution. The Horn shooting happend in America. I lived 33 years in the cesspool that is NYC.

Novus Collectus
July 12, 2008, 10:00 PM
Problem with Goetz was he lived in a girly man city where regular citizens had been nuetered from being men. By the time he realized he needed a gun and used it the girly man came out of him and was used to condem him.

The socialist have done everything possible to steal an average mans manhood. They have turned a mans family against him, taken his work from him along with his borders language and culture.

They had to beat Goetz down as an example to others who would fight back. They want it known that they rule in the city.

Now the socialist are parading Horn on the talk shows so they can condem him.

jjThe Sulliivan Act in NYC which made Goetz's carry of a handgun illegal was racist and classist in intent, it had nothing at all to do with socialism.

Stevie-Ray
July 12, 2008, 10:03 PM
Joe Horn on the other hand was not defending himself (though arguably accounts could say he was from at least one of them.)
He was not willing to let his neighbor's home be victimized and went out to stop the bad guys from escaping with his neighbors property, planning to shoot from the moment he left his home if you listen to the 911 call.
Since he lives in Texas everything he did was legal, and whether it was self defense or not does not change that, so it was simply no billed.God bless Texas!:cool: Would that all of our states were this intelligent. Crime and gangs would be a thing of the past.

Just Jim
July 12, 2008, 10:08 PM
The Sulliivan Act in NYC which made Goetz's carry of a handgun illegal was racist and classist in intent, it had nothing at all to do with socialism.

Ny is a socialist govenment and this case proves it. Goetz defends himself from four criminals who threaten his life for money. He shoots in self defense and the DA gives the robbers immunity from prosecution to testifie in the trial. The bad guys go free and the man defending himself is sent to jail by a socialist DA.

That is what is crazy about socialist, they try to keep good people down and let bad ones run free.

jj

PS the sullivan act is illegal according to the constitution yet socialist have stood with it since it was written.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 12, 2008, 10:48 PM
One obvious difference is that Joe Horn was on the line with 911 before the shooting even happened and waited around for the cops afterwards.

Goetz on the other hand shot four men and fled. It doesn't matter how justified the shoot was - once you flee the scene of a shooting, it will be real hard to avoid a criminal trial.

Aaron Baker
July 12, 2008, 11:39 PM
Those packs of animals were able to go "wilding" with confidence due to the Nazi gun ban in NYC. There were instances where female victims were raped. The Central park jogger case was a high profile example of this.

Interesting that the prime example of "wilding" of young African American males, the Central Park Jogger case, was, in fact, the work of a single serial rapist. Despite the fact that police coerced confessions out of 5 underage black males, they were eventually acquitted when DNA evidence showed that a single, serial rapist was the perpetrator. Of course, by that time, these guys had spent time in jail, despite protesting their innocence.

I'm not saying that young black males never commit crime, but it's the tales of crime where young black men are described as "animals" and have behavior like "wilding" attributed to them that don't do us any favors. That's what encourages vigilantism.

There's a big difference between a valid self defense situation and being a vigilante. If you hear about a killing and think "That's so awesome--sounds just like something the Punisher would say!" then you're either 12 years old, or you're a mall ninja that needs his head examined.

Applauding the killing of anyone isn't High Road. Perpetuating myths about "wilding" black youths isn't really High Road either.

Aaron

JWarren
July 12, 2008, 11:51 PM
Aaron Baker wrote:

Interesting that the prime example of "wilding" of young African American males, the Central Park Jogger case, was, in fact, the work of a single serial rapist. Despite the fact that police coerced confessions out of 5 underage black males, they were eventually acquitted when DNA evidence showed that a single, serial rapist was the perpetrator. Of course, by that time, these guys had spent time in jail, despite protesting their innocence.

I'm not saying that young black males never commit crime, but it's the tales of crime where young black men are described as "animals" and have behavior like "wilding" attributed to them that don't do us any favors. That's what encourages vigilantism.

There's a big difference between a valid self defense situation and being a vigilante. If you hear about a killing and think "That's so awesome--sounds just like something the Punisher would say!" then you're either 12 years old, or you're a mall ninja that needs his head examined.

Applauding the killing of anyone isn't High Road. Perpetuating myths about "wilding" black youths isn't really High Road either.


Hold up a second, my friend.


I just re-read this entire thread, and you are the FIRST person mention race-- aside from one post on the first page that stated that Horn's situation involved Columbians with no further comment and the first post that only mentioned that they seemed to remember that there were accusations that Geotz was motivated out of racism-- again without any value attached.

Futhermore, the quote you attributed to FLA2760 does not contain the words "Black" or "African American" in it one time. In fact, I haven't see any of those words in this entire thread. What you are doing is putting words in his mouth.

I think you are reading what you want to read in order to make your allegations. Don't cry racism where there is none.


And yes, the boys convicted of the Central Park rapes were innocent. I saw a documentary on it showing the police interrogation. It is a tragedy for sure. But it isn't even closely related to this.



-- John

Zoogster
July 12, 2008, 11:55 PM
Goetz on the other hand shot four men and fled. It doesn't matter how justified the shoot was - once you flee the scene of a shooting, it will be real hard to avoid a criminal trial.
He was also in illegal possession of a firearm in NYC, not fleeing was also sure jail time.

Either way he was looking at jail time.
If he had gotten away he might have served no time, if they caught him later he might have been charged with murder.

Either way he was going to serve time.


If they stretch the prohibited person list enough, or eventualy banned firearms you would be in the same position.

Someone in many nations, in a place like the UK would have to do the same thing.
By being being able to defend himself he was already a criminal.
He was a non predatory criminal that defended himself from predatory criminals.
Unjust laws make just people not law abiding.

One obvious difference is that Joe Horn was on the line with 911 before the shooting even happened and waited around for the cops afterwards.
Kinda hard to pretend you were not involved when you shoot someone right outside your home, and are on record with 911 saying you are going outside to do exactly that previously.
Plus he shot them right in front of plain clothes officers, he did not have to wait for them to arrive, they had already arrived when he shot them.

Aaron Baker
July 13, 2008, 12:04 AM
JWarren, it's not worth getting into the discussion if you can't read between the lines at all.

First of all, the Punisher-like Goetz that's being lauded by the mall ninjas of this thread used racist language himself to complain about the crime in NYC just months before he shot 4 black men. To pretend that race is a non-issue is unrealistic.

Just because FLA2760 didn't specifically mention race doesn't mean he didn't raise the issue, either. He specifically mentioned "wilding," which is a term applied almost exclusively to the alleged activities of young black males. If you can find a citation where it's using to refer to white males, I'd like to see it.

And he mentions the Central Park Jogger case, where the suspects who were eventually acquitted were young black males, as a prime example of the horrible crime that was plaguing NYC during that period. Holding out the alleged crimes as an example of what was wrong with NYC when Bernie Goetz started shooting people is questionable at best when it turns out that those men did nothing wrong.

So you tell me how I'm putting words in someone's mouth. FLA2670 knows very well the race of the people involved. But I didn't attribute any comment to him that he didn't make. All I did was point out that his facts were wrong.

And when you use wrong facts to provide examples of crime waves, and all those examples involve ONLY black males, then I don't see how race HASN'T become an issue. He's perpetuating the myth that "wilding" black males committed a crime that they didn't actually commit.

So unless you can show me:

a) a case where wilding refers to anything but black males
b) a real case where "wilding" actually occurred, rather than being fabricated completely out of whole cloth as a trait of young black males
c)where I accuse anyone in particular of being racist

then back off.

All I'm doing is pointing out that if you breed a culture of fear by perpetuating myths, then you generate more vigilantism. Which is bad.

Aaron

Derek Zeanah
July 13, 2008, 12:09 AM
If'n this thread is going to divert into "is he is, or is he ain't a racist," then I'm gonna close it.

Let's keep it on topic, please.

lloydkristmas
July 13, 2008, 12:16 AM
Aaron,

Im the original poster and hadnt intended for this to become racial, but okay....

Ive never heard of "wilding" until now, but to address your request for a story where "wilding" actually occurred, here goes:

When I was in college, about 5 black males surrounded my car and one of them hopped in with what looked like a knife, held it to my side and said "gimme yo wallet boy" or something to that effect. I sat there shocked for a second, then he jumped out of the car, laughed along with his pals, and said "just kiddin" and they walked off laughing the whole way. The police told me this was a common tactic they had seen recently. Attempt to scare the person into thinking they were going to be hurt, try and get some money out of them, and scram. Turned out this guy had no knife, just a cell phone, but at the time it had the same effect. I posted a topic on this a while back, called something like "I was fake robbed".

If youll allow me to assume that, by the way you described it earlier, we could consider this incident "wilding" then there you have it. Did I have a gun? No. Was I a college kid with no concept of situational awareness? Yes. Lets not turn my thread into a racial one. Myths or not, we can all read up on the ethnic/racial statistics related to crime and form our own judgements from there.

Back on topic, Goetz had to have looked pretty bad for making the comments that he did, but that really doesnt change the fact that he was acting in defense of his life, or at least what he thought was a possible attempt on his life. Comments like those that he made wont make his case any easier, but they sure shouldnt determine his guilt or innocence.

Aaron Baker
July 13, 2008, 12:29 AM
First of all, I want to make clear that it is not my intention to accuse any High Road member of being a racist.

However, I do think that it is important to realize that race has not magically disappeared. When someone like Bernie Goetz says that the solution to the crime problem is to get rid of black people and Latinos (and uses racial slurs to say it) and then 18 months later, he kills 4 black men and appears to be willing to finish what began as self-defense by intentionally executing one of them, then race IS an issue.

Lloydkristmas, you missed my point entirely. I am not defining wilding at all, and I didn't give a definition. It is a word that entered the American lexicon as a direct result of the hysterical media coverage of the Central Park jogger case, which turned out NOT to have been committed by young black males.

I asked for an example of a case where "wilding" actually occurred, and you gave me a case of a crime perpetrated by black males. Except no one referred to it as wilding until now.

That's sort of exactly my point. Wilding is a racially charged term because it's only ever used to refer to black males committing crimes, and implies that they are animals, rather than humans.

The 30 white guys that attacked a group of four black men (who had done nothing wrong) and killed one of them, during the time around the Central Park jogger episode, were not referred to as "wilding." That was referred to, astonishingly enough, as a "horrible tragedy," implying it was somehow all a big mistake.

When it comes down to it, here's the point I'm trying to make in this thread:

When we make an assessment about whether a situation is a laudable exercise of self-defense rights or bloodthirsty vigilantism, let's make sure that we're not taking into account the race of the perpetrators. Black criminals and white criminals both deserve what they've got coming in a true self-defense situation, but neither race should be subject to vigilante justice. My concern is that by referring to the myth of "wilding," we're somehow justifying a different standard of use of force when the criminal is black, since they're somehow less human and more prone to illogical bursts of violence.

Again, not accusing anyone in this thread of specific behavior, but simply suggesting that we all have the self-awareness to examine whether our beliefs might be different in any given situation depending on the race of the criminal.

For Bernie Goetz, who had a history of making racist comments, maybe race played a factor in why he decided to act the way he did, rather than letting it play out differently.

Aaron

perlgerl
July 13, 2008, 12:44 AM
Apropos to this thread...I found these lyrics online sans music, but I play it on the guitar with Cowboy/Western-style music.

originally from: http://www.strinz.com/zipbeep/zipcon.htm - Issue #35


THE BALLAD OF BERNARD GOETZ
by Chuck Strinz

Well, he rode into the city with a pistol by his side.
Was he lookin' for a showdown? Was he just a man of pride?
Or a cowboy who was only trying to make his way through life
With a belly full o' bowing to the sharp end of a knife?

Bernard Goetz, Bernard Goetz.
Eastern city hero of the spirit of the west.
He's the answer to the Sharks and he's the answer to the Jets.
`Cause there's no one packs* like the man called Bernard Goetz.

Oh, the man who tames the subway is the man who writes the law.
And the hero is the winner when he's quickest on the draw.
And the winner is the hero when he's on the side of right.
Every cowboy, every looney, now's the time to start to fight.

Bernard Goetz, Bernard Goetz.
Eastern city hero of the spirit of the west.
Tell the home for crazy people that they'd better bring their nets.
Nuts will follow the example of the man called Bernard Goetz.

Goetz is not a man who's crazy and he's not a man who's wrong.
And we must be half as weak as him if he is twice as strong.
Now, a lot of us are feeling that the criminals do time
Just a fraction that the victim is subjected to the crime.

Bernard Goetz, Bernard Goetz.
Eastern city hero of the spirit of the west.
It's a name that breaks the burliest of bad guys into sweats.
Every time has got its hero, and our hero's Bernard Goetz.

If you're ever in New York and find you're short a buck or five,
Stay away from little strangers if you want to stay alive.
'Though they may be good Samaritans who tell you, "Come to sup."
They may also each be powderkegs just waiting to blow up.

Bernard Goetz, Bernard Goetz.
Eastern city hero of the spirit of the west.
If you find you're low on fortune and you've got your share of debts.
There's no aid, so don't enlist it, from the man called Bernard Goetz.

All the jails are overcrowded and parole is easy pie.
With the focus of the force of law, it's easy to see why.
'Cause they waste their time pursuing petty crimes of personal choice.
Leaving victims to the violent, and the logic of the voice

Of Bernard Goetz, Bernard Goetz.
Eastern city hero of the spirit of the west.
You can only fill a jail so full, and then its future sets
At the point of the discretion of the men like Bernard Goetz.

He's the Hero of the Yankees, he's the Ranger of the Tubes,
Darling of the Vigilantes and Protector of the Rubes.
When the Angels aren't handy on the trains the law won't ride
He's the only good protection for the rest of us inside.

Bernard Goetz, Bernard Goetz.
Eastern city hero of the spirit of the west.
Oh, the Yankees can embrace the man, or trade him to the Mets.
But the country's in the power of the men like Bernard Goetz.


* or: "...no one to defend you like..." for better scansion on line 8

lloydkristmas
July 13, 2008, 12:56 AM
Ok Aaron thats fine, I just gave an example of what, under the definition of the term could be called "wilding". Certainly not making any accusations.

In the interest of changing the subject a little but still sticking with an issue that was relevant to the Goetz case....Lets say a guy who is a known bigot and isnt afraid to make it known gets involved in a self defense shooting while being victimized by members of another race. Assuming he followed the law and the parameters it sets regarding self defense, is he any guiltier than any other person? Sure his past would make for a hellacious trial and probably make him a target of all sorts of activist groups, but itsnt he still justified in his actions? Lets say Goetz hadnt made the "heres another" comment as he attempted to finish the guy off (making the incident a more legit shoot, aside from the illegal gun). Would the fact that he was documented saying racial slurs a week earlier have changed anything? Would that make him a racist vigilante or just an A-hole who happened to be accosted by the same people his prejudices targeted? Just a thought, not really directed at anyone in particular...

Novus Collectus
July 13, 2008, 07:26 AM
Zoogster: Kinda hard to pretend you were not involved when you shoot someone right outside your home, and are on record with 911 saying you are going outside to do exactly that previously.
He did not proclaim he was going to shoot them (kill) in offense, he was responding to the 911 operator saying Horn will be shot: "You are going to get yourself shot if you go outside with a gun", (Horn with adrenaline pumping now and feeling defensive) "wanna make a bet.....(mumble) I'm going to kill 'em" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0).
Now to me, and apparently the Grand Jury most likely, his statement of "I'm going to kill 'em" was not just spurred by the operator's actions, but is also to be taken as "I'm going to kill 'em (if they try to shoot me)". In other words I hear Horn saying he is going to kill them if they try to kill him and he will win.

Plus he shot them right in front of plain clothes officers, he did not have to wait for them to arrive, they had already arrived when he shot them.I hope you are aware he did not know the officer arrived and was ont he scene.
The reason we know the shooting, or at least the first two shots, was justified and self defense was because the officer witnessed the shooting.
Horn, not knowing the officer was there, did not leave, immediatley asked for police to arrive, put his shotgun down by instruction from the 911 operator before he saw any officers even.

One can argue if Horn used bad judgment going outside, but Horn thought he was doing his duty as a lawful citizen and he was well within the law.
Goetz, while understandable that he broke the law out of desperation because the laws were unjust, he still broke the law, he knew he was breaking the law and he initially ran from the law.

he did not have to wait for them to arrive, they had already arrived when he shot them.Joe Horn, if he waited for the police officer he did not know was there already to get out of his car, he might be dead. They were rushing him with a tire iron and if he did not shoot less than two seconds later he might have had his head busted open. He shot in legitimate self defense.
...I mean really, put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself, if two men younger and faster than you were rushing you with a weapon, would you wait for the police to arrive or stop them, or would you shoot?

JWarren
July 13, 2008, 11:03 AM
Aaron Baker wrote:


JWarren, it's not worth getting into the discussion if you can't read between the lines at all.


Oh, I can read between the lines. I just draw my line prior to putting words in other people's mouths.


First of all, the Punisher-like Goetz that's being lauded by the mall ninjas of this thread used racist language himself to complain about the crime in NYC just months before he shot 4 black men. To pretend that race is a non-issue is unrealistic.


Defense of self and/or property is "Mall Ninja?" Wow.


One must remember one simple fact:

REGARDLESS of Goetz' attitudes, HE wasn't the one who CHOSE to assault anyone. Being in a place and able to defend himself DOES NOT CAUSE the assault.

If so, I would fully expect you to blame a women wearing a mini-skirt for getting raped.

Those guys on the subway CHOSE to create this situation.

If Geotz was out like some Charles Bronson, he STILL was the passive party in this equation. Plain and simple.


Just because FLA2760 didn't specifically mention race doesn't mean he didn't raise the issue, either. He specifically mentioned "wilding," which is a term applied almost exclusively to the alleged activities of young black males. If you can find a citation where it's using to refer to white males, I'd like to see it.

Yeah, but it was you who changed his quote to materially include words he didn't say.

As for wilding, well, I am 37 years old, and like to think I have a decent grasp on current (and not so current events.) I have a fair vocabulary.

And I simply do not hear the word "Wilding." I can't say if I heard it during the Central Park incident, but I may or may not have. What I do know it that is clearly isn't a common term in any circles that I've run through-- and I've walked through some rather colorful ones.

While the term may have had some connetation, I will surmise that it has been practically relagated to obscurity. But I suppose someone remembers it.


So you tell me how I'm putting words in someone's mouth. FLA2670 knows very well the race of the people involved. But I didn't attribute any comment to him that he didn't make. All I did was point out that his facts were wrong.

Actually you did change the statement. I quoted it in my first post.

But let's get this out. If they were black, they were black. End of story. I wrote something a bit back on here about a guy that tried to attack me in traffic. He was white. And that's about it.

I won't pretend that the black community does have a more acute problem with crime. The FBI crime statistics show that. Roughly half the violent crime in the US is commited by black persons where roughly half is committed by white persons. On the surface that sounds expected.... until you realise that the per capta is off. Black persons comprise roughly 13% of the US population and White persons comprise roughly 78%.

What does this tell me? It tells me that there is a crime problem in the black community-- one that I hope can be addressed and taken off that path.


But you know what? I really don't believe that it will.


From anadoctal observations, I see a crime problem creating itself among other groups as well-- the US society across the board. If we are seeing a deterioration or ethics and morals in EVERY demographic in the US, how the hell can we expect ONE group to somehow reverse thier own sitution independantly of the US society?

Now, we HAVE had years where violent crime rates have dropped. But I don't think that tells the tale of what is going on. Sheer numbers of incidents is not what I could consider a true barometer of the situation. It is the intensity of the crimes that we are seeing an increase in. It is the callousness that he are seeing on the rise. I see our society having a certain percentage of it losing its empathy and/or respect for others.


And when you use wrong facts to provide examples of crime waves, and all those examples involve ONLY black males, then I don't see how race HASN'T become an issue. He's perpetuating the myth that "wilding" black males committed a crime that they didn't actually commit.


He probably should not have included the Central Park rape-- it was a miscarriage of justice in the extreme.

However, I just re-read his post again. Again, he NEVER mentioned a race.

But I have a question....am I to understand that crimes cannot be mentioned unless they contain more than one ethnic group? I'd rather focus on the event. If it turns out that the group is black, so be it. If it is a bunch of white people, so be it. Or whoever else.

Attributing things based upon race is so passe' these days.

We have Black gangs, we have Hispanic gangs, we have Cuban gangs, we have Asian gangs, we have Biker gangs, we have Skinheads, we have Aryan Nations. And let's not forget the two most notorious gangs: The Democrats and Republicans.


So unless you can show me:

a) a case where wilding refers to anything but black males
b) a real case where "wilding" actually occurred, rather than being fabricated completely out of whole cloth as a trait of young black males
c)where I accuse anyone in particular of being racist


a.) Addressed. Lexicon be damned, the word is practically esoteric.

b.) Addressed. There has been crimes associated with groups homogeneously made up of all groups. They are all pretty damn wild if you ask me.

c.) Addressed. I never said you called anyone anything. I made an observation. Any more would have required me to read between the lines and/or put words in someone's mouth.


then back off.


Excuse me?


All I'm doing is pointing out that if you breed a culture of fear by perpetuating myths, then you generate more vigilantism. Which is bad.


I'll contend that it was a bit more than that. But PRIMARY problems we face is NOT having a culture of fear-- it is the things you HAVE to realistically fear. Read THR for a bit and you will see a plethera of links showing EXACTLY what you need to worry about-- Home invasions, rape, murder, robbery, etc.

We don't need myths.



EDIT: ADD



However, I do think that it is important to realize that race has not magically disappeared. When someone like Bernie Goetz says that the solution to the crime problem is to get rid of black people and Latinos (and uses racial slurs to say it) and then 18 months later, he kills 4 black men and appears to be willing to finish what began as self-defense by intentionally executing one of them, then race IS an issue.


Valid point.

I will, however, remind you that-- regardless of Goetz' views or attitudes, HE didn't create the situation where he would be in a position to do such a thing. It was the persons who chose to attack HIM.

If he had made those statements and then went out stalking and excuting black persons, we would have have a very different story. However, from what I can remember, he was passive to the ordeal-- until those persons CHOSE to make a mark of him.

His actions are debatable, as are his attitudes. But they-- in no way-- should gloss over the issue of how then incident occured.


Lloydkristmas, you missed my point entirely. I am not defining wilding at all, and I didn't give a definition. It is a word that entered the American lexicon as a direct result of the hysterical media coverage of the Central Park jogger case, which turned out NOT to have been committed by young black males.

Let's drop this whole "wilding" thing. It seems that Aaron and FLA are the only ones that even remember the term. Whatever the origins, it is a pretty idiotic notion to attribute it to any one race. I've see an lot of kids of a lot of demographics who would exhibit what could be called "wilding"-- because they are wild kids-- and not because of race.


When we make an assessment about whether a situation is a laudable exercise of self-defense rights or bloodthirsty vigilantism, let's make sure that we're not taking into account the race of the perpetrators. Black criminals and white criminals both deserve what they've got coming in a true self-defense situation, but neither race should be subject to vigilante justice. My concern is that by referring to the myth of "wilding," we're somehow justifying a different standard of use of force when the criminal is black, since they're somehow less human and more prone to illogical bursts of violence.


I don't think anyone I know -- in my community or on THR has seperate rules of response based upon race. A thug of any race gets a response based upon his choice of creating the situation and as the situation merits. Period.

I'm white. I cannot fathom me treating a white intruder ANY different than any other one. It defies logic. For that reason, it seems that an argument is created and argued against that -- in my opinion-- doesn't exist. Therefore, it is a waste of mental bandwidth.





-- John

Just Jim
July 13, 2008, 11:11 AM
Big +1 John

jj

Old Grump
July 13, 2008, 05:48 PM
+2 John

And I am more than old enough to remember the term, a tabloid term just like assault weapon being used so freely when the people using it do not even know what an assault weapon is. Wilding was an evil sounding word for an evil sounding deed and it made papers sell.

As for Horn, he wasn't looking for trouble but trying to be a good neighbor.

Goetz lived in a bad place at a bad time but he deliberately went out of his way to be in a situation where he could satisfy his taste for blood. If he really was a subway hero he would have stayed and talked to the police on the scene or he could have kept his mouth shut and it would have been forgotten. If he had stayed he would have lost his gun, he may have been fined, maybe not because public sentiment would have been on his side. He set himself up for punishment because he was an idiot.

guitarhero323
July 13, 2008, 06:02 PM
i think the he shouldnt pay as a matter of fact the bg needs to pay for the spent ammo used on him.

lysander
July 13, 2008, 06:03 PM
If Geotz was out like some Charles Bronson, he STILL was the passive party in this equation. Plain and simple.

Goetz may have started out the passive defender in the subway car...but he became the aggressor. That, and the fact that he was on record as previously having made racist comments, contributed heavily to his civil liability.

It is fundamental that the use of force in self defense must be proportional. Once Goetz repelled the impending assault with the first round of gunfire, the incident was over. He was no longer under threat of deadly force from the would be aggressors.

However, Goetz became an aggressor when he opened his mouth, said "Have another" and attempted to shoot a wounded man. He made this statement and went after the wounded man after surveying the situation in the car. Meaning he had the time to develop the situational awareness to stand down and wait for authorities.

Yes...he pulled the trigger on an empty gun when he walked up to the wounded guy..but his words evidenced intent and he made the attempt. That was probably enough to put him on the hook (insofar as the civil trial was concerned).

Bernie's trial testimony and statements to the police were chock full of stupidity.

Zoogster
July 13, 2008, 06:10 PM
If he had stayed he would have lost his gun, he may have been fined, maybe not because public sentiment would have been on his side. He set himself up for punishment because he was an idiot.
He would have been arrested and charged.
NYC does not give pistol permits to most citizens.
He not only possessed the firearm without a permit, he was illegaly and criminaly carrying it (the only way to carry it in NYC.)

He would not have been just 'fined'. By simply having the pistol to begin with he was a criminal, a serious criminal by NYC standards.
He was a non predatory criminal that defended himself from predatory criminals.

His actions technicaly classify him as a violent criminal. He illegaly possessed a weapon and he used it.
Even if he made no poor statements previously, and even if he did not make the comment during the situation after assessing the situation, or attempt to fire another another round.

Even if he was otherwise the perfect choir boy, he would have technicaly been a violent criminal, a menace by NYC standards.

Big Matt
July 13, 2008, 06:19 PM
I may be mistaken, but personally I first recall the term "wilding" used in the Kubrick movie A Clockwork Orange. That movie featured several criminals (all white) who went about London(?) wreaking havoc. Don't know the exact date but the movie had to be well before the central park rape incident.

FLA2760
July 13, 2008, 06:35 PM
Remember that this happened in NYC. There were television commercials that ran in the 70s and early 80s ( I remember the one with Mayor Ed Koch) that said get "caught" with a gun in NYC and do a year in jail. You could have been a priest that never even got a parking ticket and you are going to Rikers Island. The hatred of guns in NYC ( by the lawmakers and politicians) borders on insanity. So in view of this; Bernie Goetz running away can be seen as the second phase of his fight, flight response.

lysander
July 13, 2008, 06:43 PM
So in view of this; Bernie Goetz running away can be seen as the second phase of his fight, flight response.

Don't you mean third phase? 1) Fight 2) Re-assess threat and attempt to shoot the wounded 3) Flee.

FLA2760
July 13, 2008, 06:45 PM
LOL thats good

akodo
July 13, 2008, 06:46 PM
Hear me out. If I'm in a valid self-defense situation, I would certainly use my gun to defend myself, even if that meant shooting and possibly killing someone. But I'm going to do everything I can to avoid shooting in the first place.

And once I shoot, if the threat is neutralized, then I'll stop shooting. If I have time to even utter the words "here, have another," then there's no threat that justifies shooting.

Self-defense is a fundamental right, and I fully support it. Vigilante executions of criminals is not a right. If I cross that line, I should be punished, even if "they started it."

In a large part I agree with you.

However, one must realize human beings are not rational. We are emotional creatures who have learned to put on a thin layer of logic over top.

Once the fight starts, logic goes out the window and raw emotion kicks into high gear. I will not condemn a man in a 'fight for life' situation if he is not able to immediately flip a switch in his brain and go back to the world of logic and reason.

If you don't like that, then don't push a law abiding person so far they must fight you. I will hold them blameless if in the process of fighting, after defeating the criminal, they fail to stop and kill the criminal.

lysander
July 13, 2008, 07:04 PM
I will not condemn a man in a 'fight for life' situation if he is not able to immediately flip a switch in his brain and go back to the world of logic and reason.


You won't...but the law might.

JWarren
July 13, 2008, 08:01 PM
lysander wrote:


Goetz may have started out the passive defender in the subway car...but he became the aggressor. That, and the fact that he was on record as previously having made racist comments, contributed heavily to his civil liability.

It is fundamental that the use of force in self defense must be proportional. Once Goetz repelled the impending assault with the first round of gunfire, the incident was over. He was no longer under threat of deadly force from the would be aggressors.

However, Goetz became an aggressor when he opened his mouth, said "Have another" and attempted to shoot a wounded man. He made this statement and went after the wounded man after surveying the situation in the car. Meaning he had the time to develop the situational awareness to stand down and wait for authorities.

Yes...he pulled the trigger on an empty gun when he walked up to the wounded guy..but his words evidenced intent and he made the attempt. That as probably enough to put him on the hook (insofar as the civil trial was concerned).

Bernie's trial testimony and statements to the police were chock full of stupidity.


Oh true-- without a doubt. I make no effort to defend Geotz at all.

The quote you took from me was not a defense of Geotz-- it was a condemnation of the persons that he shot.



In our society, we have a tendency to judge a situation by the subsequent events rather than the originating circumstances.

It is the equivalent of starting a book and then reading the last chapter before you finish it.

No matter how its sliced, no matter how good or bad Geotz was, it doesn't change the fact that the originated circumstances was that he was passive and those that he shot made a decision to become aggressors. In effect, THEY originated the transgression and demonstrated a lack of morality and ethics prior to any action of Geotz.

While Geotz may have had some demons inside to deal with, those guys would not have been exposed to them if they hadn't knocked on the door.

I will not let Geotz' attitudes or actions gloss over their own responsibility and complicity in creating their own deaths.

And I'll not shed a tear for them. I frankly think society is a little better place without them in it.

But my condemnation of them does not create the condition of my affinity for Geotz. I can dislike them without liking him.

As I see it, Jeffrey Dalmer got sent to prison and someone murdered him in prison. The world is a better place without Jeffrey Dalmer breathing air, but I suspect that the guy who killed him was no Saint himself.

Sometimes, really screwed up people kill very screwed up people and you just have to stand there and watch.


-- John

Z71
July 13, 2008, 08:08 PM
I think, thought Goetz used a Ruger P85 0r P89?

lysander
July 13, 2008, 08:37 PM
No matter how its sliced, no matter how good or bad Geotz was, it doesn't change the fact that the originated circumstances was that he was passive and those that he shot made a decision to become aggressors. In effect, THEY originated the transgression and demonstrated a lack of morality and ethics prior to any action of Geotz.

...and I am not defending the criminals who threatened Goetz...

That being said, what you have stated above seems to boil down to a "he hit me first" argument, AKA on the playground as..."he started it." You are correct in your position that the 4 bad guys "started it." However, my point is just that Goetz was not justified in "finishing it" with excessive deadly force.

If another kid on the playground gives you a wedgie...you don't get to beat the hell out of him and then say..."he put hands on me first." No one would accept that as a rational, proportional response.

Zoogster
July 13, 2008, 08:49 PM
And I'll not shed a tear for them. I frankly think society is a little better place without them in it.

JWarren I think you are mistaken. None of them died.

Cabey was reduced to a permanently paralized state, his life of crime over.

The other three have created new victims since then.

They are still with us, and making new victims of violent crime.


Soon after being released from the hospital, Ramseur attacked a young woman, took her up on the roof of her building, and held a gun to her head while his companion sodomized her.

Barry Allen and Troy Canty went to prison for robbery.
Barry Allen commited two known robberies since the incident, who knows how many things he got away with.


Of course they were just innocent men traveling with sharpened screwdrivers on thier way to break into arcade machines (thier own story, used to explain the sharpened screwdrivers.)
When they positioned themselves strategicly around Goetz, getting ready to pounce... oops I mean make small chat.

JWarren
July 13, 2008, 08:51 PM
lysander,

As I said, I'm not defending Geotz, and I know you aren't defending the guys he shot.

You arguement-- like mine-- is worth mentioning.

My only point was that we-- as a society-- must remember that Geotz' shooting did not happen in a vacuum and it did not occur without cause.

And as you pointed out, his actions beyond defending himself was NOT justified or ethical.


As I read it, I think you and are in perfect agreement.


-- John

JWarren
July 13, 2008, 08:52 PM
Zoogster wrote:

I think you are mistaken. None of them died.


Ahh.. my bad. It was a long time ago, and they say the memory is the first thing to go.... oh well.

Wait... what were we talking about?


-- John

lysander
July 13, 2008, 08:55 PM
As I read it, I think you and are in perfect agreement.

Cheers to rational discussion.

JWarren
July 13, 2008, 08:56 PM
Cheers to rational discussion.

Agreed, my friend. :)


-- John

If you enjoyed reading about "Bernie Goetz and Joe Horn" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!