Bernie Goetz and Joe Horn

It seems like that case was pretty divisive, with issues like racism, vigilantism, etc being brought up.

Click to expand...

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."

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

God bless Texas! Would that all of our states were this intelligent. Crime and gangs would be a thing of the past.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

FLA2760 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

"The Ballad of Bernard Goetz"

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

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.

Click to expand...

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".
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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Aaron Baker wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Big +1 John

jj

Same

+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.

i think the he shouldnt pay as a matter of fact the bg needs to pay for the spent ammo used on him.