Revisiting the Bernard Goetz scenario - Page 3

Socrates · May 22, 2008, 03:32 AM

Close as I can put it is, Goetz sounds like someone with post traumatic stress disorder, and fools that don't recognize it, judging him... I would never talk about our members that way, so, you know I'm talking about DA's, and judges, never living that life, and passing judgement.

Does that sound familiar to any of the posters here?

Dr. S

buzz_knox · May 22, 2008, 08:40 AM

Quote:

So what you seem to be suggesting is that these guys had some strong incentive NOT to push an attack on somebody, given all the witnesses on the scene that could ID them.

Criminals routinely get linked to unsolved crimes when they are arrested for current crimes. Fear of being linked to one crime is not and has never been a deterrent to commiting another crime.

As for judging people, it's great to recognize that most of us haven't been in situation A or situation B. It's great to acknowledge that we are arm chair quarterbacking.

It's important to acknowledge that both of those facts will apply to any judge or jury (and even many investigating officers) who will do the same thing if we are ever in such a situation.

Stevie-Ray · May 22, 2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

regarding the original question, i believe the rule of thumb when confronted by multiple attackers is to turn and run. if they pursue you the odds are pretty slim they'll reach you at the same time. in this way you can deal with them one at a time - whichever one is the fastest runner first. and if they don't pursue you then you avoid the conundrum.

Or you may just catch a bullet in the back. They've already proved themselves too lazy to work, why shouldn't you believe they're too lazy to chase you?

I've never had a problem with Bernie. Personally I think he was railroaded. To you native New Yorkers, best of luck getting your rights back. As for me, I live too close in proximity to the same type of thing. I don't plan to be here forever. But I will also always do my best to protect myself and mine. My neighborhood has already twice had to take our streets back. I'm sure it will happen again.

chopz · May 22, 2008, 08:19 PM

lol. i guess you missed my point. the point is:

1) it's easier to deal with 4 people who are, for example, all south of you than 1 each on your north, south, east and west sides

2) the more distance between oneself and multiple attackers, the narrower the field of sight one will need to maintain in order to watch them all

3) if moving out of the center, they can't all be closest, so presumably the one closest will pose the most immediate threat, and should be dealt with first.

anyway, i know nothing about such things, so i'm just talking out my hat.

TEDDY · May 22, 2008, 08:44 PM

sounds like most have no idea about criminals and what its like to be on a subway car now a days.I used to carry my balsa wood airplains to meets in boston.would I now?are you crazy?the gangs that prowl the public transportation are animals.most of you would be killed,armed or not.because you would hesatate and think about the results as you were dying.gun men used to just want your money.now they kill you and then take your $2.

:

Socrates · May 22, 2008, 09:10 PM

How about just in a pizza place?

http://www.trutv.com/video/shows/most-shocking.html

Go to "COUPLES THERAPY"

Sweetheart, I cut off this man in line for pizza, and he didn't like it. Will you beat him to a pulp for me, baby?

Chui · May 23, 2008, 05:46 AM

One guy did have an ice pick or some sort of weapon on him. I think that his mistake was to "gloat" during his emotional statements to the NYPD.

I wasn't there but to think that they weren't a threat to him is ludicrous.

I believe his ordeal stemmed from POLITICS - racial (don't cry racism on this one because I'm "Black") and otherwise. His statements which I recall didn't assist him either.

The shooting: the human startle response will produce a pause or paralysis response to those not accustomed to gunfire. So they were stationary for perhaps two or three shots before they would attempt to flee for cover or return fire.

I don't know how I would have proceeded; probably just has he did. It's very difficult to predict. One could say, "Road House Rules": everyone gets one before anyone gets two. Well, if they don't move that may be true. I cannot provide you any meaningful response here.

Watch your 6

ssilicon · May 23, 2008, 02:21 PM

I'm just curious, but doesn't the bad guy seeing your gun and running away count as neutralizing the threat, at least as it pertains to self defense? At least one of those he shot was in the back if I recall correctly.

In war, letting them run away is not good because they will redeploy to fight you again later. But in SD, it is usually considered a taboo to shoot someone in the back who is running away from you.

LanceOregon · May 23, 2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Close as I can put it is, Goetz sounds like someone with post traumatic stress disorder, and fools that don't recognize it, judging him...

Good luck in getting off on a shooting by claiming PTSD. That is indeed a most difficult defense to make.

I don't think that many here are judging Goetz to the point of making him about to be a bad person. It is not a matter of whether he was "good" or "bad".

I think it is more that Goetz hurt himself by some of his own actions. Certainly talking so much with the police was a dumb move on his part. I know that if I am ever in a self-defense shooting, I am going to get a lawyer immediately. That is the smart thing for anyone to do.

Likewise, making those racial slurs years before was very dumb also. Just look at how the words of Mark Fuhrman were used by OJ's defense team in his murder trial. It diverts attention from the central issues, and raises concerns about whether the person's real motivation was racial.

If Goetz had never made the racial remarks, and had immediately demanded to have a lawyer, he would be better off than he is today.

Remember that during his confession to police, Goetz made this statement about himself: "I was a monster".

And his second shot into Darrell Canby certainly is difficult to defend. That second shot is what cost him dearly in the civil lawsuit, as it was the one that struck him in the spine.

And he shot two, not just one, of the criminals in the back.

.

Socrates · May 23, 2008, 04:06 PM

I don't know about that. I've been in the middle of two fights in two days, after getting the police to walk me to my car...and last night couldn't sleep...

Problem is, I don't think people realize the stress such situations put you under. I had kids in San Francisco that had to go across 4-6 other gangs territories to get to school.
With the adrenal dump they would get just trying to survive getting to school, and home again, it's a miracle they learned anything. Some of them would just pass out, and go to sleep, and you couldn't really wake them up.

I think this is part of the keep your mouth shut problem Goetz had...

Also, Goetz shot so fast, when he started to shoot, I'm sure all of the guys were coming at him. However, once commited, and getting off 5 shots in less then 2 seconds, the possibility that a target started facing you, and, is going to react to the blast and turn is highly likely. Similar stuff happens in police shootings, and everyone understands it, except people that haven't interviewed officers after shootings, or been through such stuff.

Socrates · May 24, 2008, 02:56 PM

Not a police mistake. The booking DA should have looked at all present evidence prior to filing the case. If there was one thing I learned, look at the evidence...

Running Gunfight · July 28, 2008, 05:20 PM

I know this thread is old, but I wanted to make a point.

Society needs to get over this "innocent teenager" mythos. I am not speaking specifically about this case, but it is a good example.

A group of unarmed teenagers can easily present a deadly threat. Heck, one big teenager can easily present a deadly threat. 6'2" 210 is 6'2" 210.

Deadly force consideration must include the totality of the circumstances, however...

If I am confronted by 2 or 3 or more "teenagers", armed or not, you can bet that I would be very concerned for my safety. If my wife is with me, that concern goes up a notch. I am not as fast or strong as I used to be, despite my training, and I know it, and my wife never has been.

If I am responsible for her safety, then the stakes are higher and my assessment will be adjusted accordingly.

A group of unarmed teens attacking or threatening to attack (encircling, blocking escape, lanquage, posture, attack cues, etc.), as in a robbery, could easily constitute a threat that would place the reasonable person in fear for their life or in fear of serious bodiliy injury.

http://m.wkyc.com/detail.jsp?key=50133&rc=lo&full=1

http://wcco.com/crime/beating.death.....2.359381.html

http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1421090&nid=25

These "teens" are known at times to beat people stone-cold-to-death.

R1145 · July 30, 2008, 02:26 AM

...especially if you can use someone else's to your advantage.

Goetz clearly had some issues, making this a flawed case, but it's a good example to consider in case any of us find ourselves in a similar predicament.

Obviously, Goetz was about to become a victim, and the group of men were up to no good.

Goetz was carrying illegally. It's a personal choice, and I understand his rationale. I guess that's the first lesson: When you put yourself into this position, you need to be prepared for the consequences. Merely on that basis, he should have not displayed the weapon until absolutely necessary.

When the guy asked him for money, I think he should have made a neutral but direct statement (that would look good in court later): "Please leave me alone", for example.

I would retreat if possible, but in this case, I don't think he had anywhere to go. Nowadays, I guess you could get out the cell phone and dial 911 (again, looks good in court...).

If (or rather, when...) faced with a dramatic escalation involving force or at least overt threat, then I think I would make the decision to shoot. I don't believe in brandishing weapons. I would only pull it out when I felt my life was threatened, and that I needed it out to be ready to use it.

I don't think there was much problem with the actual shooting. He shot fast, and removed the threat. Even the debatable point of whether he shot them in the backs is arguable, because it happened so quickly.

Of course, he should not have fled the scene. He should have stayed, cooperating fully with the investigation, but making no statements without a lawyer present ("My name is....those men attacked me...I'm very upset and want to have an attorney present before I answer any questions...").

Even with the mistakes in the shooting, fleeing the scene, hiding evidence, imprudent statements, etc., Goetz almost avoided prosecution, in New York City!!

May 22, 2008, 08:44 PM	#55
TEDDY Junior member Join Date: December 10, 2006 Location: MANNING SC Posts: 837	???? sounds like most have no idea about criminals and what its like to be on a subway car now a days.I used to carry my balsa wood airplains to meets in boston.would I now?are you crazy?the gangs that prowl the public transportation are animals.most of you would be killed,armed or not.because you would hesatate and think about the results as you were dying.gun men used to just want your money.now they kill you and then take your $2.:

May 23, 2008, 05:46 AM	#57
Chui Senior Member Join Date: June 28, 2004 Posts: 1,784	One guy did have an ice pick or some sort of weapon on him. I think that his mistake was to "gloat" during his emotional statements to the NYPD. I wasn't there but to think that they weren't a threat to him is ludicrous. I believe his ordeal stemmed from POLITICS - racial (don't cry racism on this one because I'm "Black") and otherwise. His statements which I recall didn't assist him either. The shooting: the human startle response will produce a pause or paralysis response to those not accustomed to gunfire. So they were stationary for perhaps two or three shots before they would attempt to flee for cover or return fire. I don't know how I would have proceeded; probably just has he did. It's very difficult to predict. One could say, "Road House Rules": everyone gets one before anyone gets two. Well, if they don't move that may be true. I cannot provide you any meaningful response here. Watch your 6 __________________ "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." ~ William Pitt, 1783

July 28, 2008, 05:20 PM	#62
Running Gunfight Member Join Date: July 1, 2004 Posts: 71	Generally... I know this thread is old, but I wanted to make a point. Society needs to get over this "innocent teenager" mythos. I am not speaking specifically about this case, but it is a good example. A group of unarmed teenagers can easily present a deadly threat. Heck, one big teenager can easily present a deadly threat. 6'2" 210 is 6'2" 210. Deadly force consideration must include the totality of the circumstances, however... If I am confronted by 2 or 3 or more "teenagers", armed or not, you can bet that I would be very concerned for my safety. If my wife is with me, that concern goes up a notch. I am not as fast or strong as I used to be, despite my training, and I know it, and my wife never has been. If I am responsible for her safety, then the stakes are higher and my assessment will be adjusted accordingly. A group of unarmed teens attacking or threatening to attack (encircling, blocking escape, lanquage, posture, attack cues, etc.), as in a robbery, could easily constitute a threat that would place the reasonable person in fear for their life or in fear of serious bodiliy injury. http://m.wkyc.com/detail.jsp?key=50133&rc=lo&full=1 http://wcco.com/crime/beating.death.....2.359381.html http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1421090&nid=25 These "teens" are known at times to beat people stone-cold-to-death.

July 30, 2008, 02:26 AM	#63
R1145 Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 351	Experience is the best teacher... ...especially if you can use someone else's to your advantage. Goetz clearly had some issues, making this a flawed case, but it's a good example to consider in case any of us find ourselves in a similar predicament. Obviously, Goetz was about to become a victim, and the group of men were up to no good. Goetz was carrying illegally. It's a personal choice, and I understand his rationale. I guess that's the first lesson: When you put yourself into this position, you need to be prepared for the consequences. Merely on that basis, he should have not displayed the weapon until absolutely necessary. When the guy asked him for money, I think he should have made a neutral but direct statement (that would look good in court later): "Please leave me alone", for example. I would retreat if possible, but in this case, I don't think he had anywhere to go. Nowadays, I guess you could get out the cell phone and dial 911 (again, looks good in court...). If (or rather, when...) faced with a dramatic escalation involving force or at least overt threat, then I think I would make the decision to shoot. I don't believe in brandishing weapons. I would only pull it out when I felt my life was threatened, and that I needed it out to be ready to use it. I don't think there was much problem with the actual shooting. He shot fast, and removed the threat. Even the debatable point of whether he shot them in the backs is arguable, because it happened so quickly. Of course, he should not have fled the scene. He should have stayed, cooperating fully with the investigation, but making no statements without a lawyer present ("My name is....those men attacked me...I'm very upset and want to have an attorney present before I answer any questions..."). Even with the mistakes in the shooting, fleeing the scene, hiding evidence, imprudent statements, etc., Goetz almost avoided prosecution, in New York City!!

May 22, 2008, 03:32 AM	#51
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	Close as I can put it is, Goetz sounds like someone with post traumatic stress disorder, and fools that don't recognize it, judging him... I would never talk about our members that way, so, you know I'm talking about DA's, and judges, never living that life, and passing judgement. Does that sound familiar to any of the posters here? Dr. S

May 22, 2008, 08:19 PM	#54
chopz Senior Member Join Date: June 6, 2007 Posts: 184	lol. i guess you missed my point. the point is: 1) it's easier to deal with 4 people who are, for example, all south of you than 1 each on your north, south, east and west sides 2) the more distance between oneself and multiple attackers, the narrower the field of sight one will need to maintain in order to watch them all 3) if moving out of the center, they can't all be closest, so presumably the one closest will pose the most immediate threat, and should be dealt with first. anyway, i know nothing about such things, so i'm just talking out my hat.

May 22, 2008, 09:10 PM	#56
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	How about just in a pizza place? http://www.trutv.com/video/shows/most-shocking.html Go to "COUPLES THERAPY" Sweetheart, I cut off this man in line for pizza, and he didn't like it. Will you beat him to a pulp for me, baby?

May 23, 2008, 02:21 PM	#58
ssilicon Senior Member Join Date: May 5, 2005 Posts: 459	I'm just curious, but doesn't the bad guy seeing your gun and running away count as neutralizing the threat, at least as it pertains to self defense? At least one of those he shot was in the back if I recall correctly. In war, letting them run away is not good because they will redeploy to fight you again later. But in SD, it is usually considered a taboo to shoot someone in the back who is running away from you.

May 23, 2008, 04:06 PM	#60
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	I don't know about that. I've been in the middle of two fights in two days, after getting the police to walk me to my car...and last night couldn't sleep... Problem is, I don't think people realize the stress such situations put you under. I had kids in San Francisco that had to go across 4-6 other gangs territories to get to school. With the adrenal dump they would get just trying to survive getting to school, and home again, it's a miracle they learned anything. Some of them would just pass out, and go to sleep, and you couldn't really wake them up. I think this is part of the keep your mouth shut problem Goetz had... Also, Goetz shot so fast, when he started to shoot, I'm sure all of the guys were coming at him. However, once commited, and getting off 5 shots in less then 2 seconds, the possibility that a target started facing you, and, is going to react to the blast and turn is highly likely. Similar stuff happens in police shootings, and everyone understands it, except people that haven't interviewed officers after shootings, or been through such stuff.

May 24, 2008, 02:56 PM	#61
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	Not a police mistake. The booking DA should have looked at all present evidence prior to filing the case. If there was one thing I learned, look at the evidence...