Berni Goetz Whats your take

[Franco2shoot]

Stumbled onto "Aftermath" episode where William Shantner interviews Berni Goetz the Subway killer. I still can't make up my mind as to his response. Had I been mugged, I could very easily see how he responded and felt little or no remorse. The dirt bags he shot shouldn't see a dime, as far as I'm concerned. But I wonder how the THR group views the whole situation.


KKKKFL

 

[Claude Clay]

i was in nyc during the son of sam events.

by the mid 80's the fallout from the liberlisim born of the 70's was being felt on the streets. punks knew the cop/courts hardly even slapped wrists anymore.
the world Berni lived in was a threating one. the NYC subway system ( a marvel in itself) allows everyone to be anywhere for a token. thus there are no safe areas.

to parphrase a movie line--they needed dying.

the courts let them free,
there are no cops next to me to help,
i'll have to do it for myself.
thats how this THR member feels

once i had the upper hand and they were moving away from me, id let them keep going away; i would not shoot. as for saying that if i let them go, they may hurt others--well, the courts let them go and they almost hurt me. who do i cry to?? lets agree that life aint fair and move along please.

 

[LaEscopeta]

...Berni Goetz the Subway killer...

If I recall correctly he did not kill anyone. Also not sure that is how he spells his name.

...Had I been mugged, I could very easily see how he responded and felt little or no remorse.

I don’t think he was mugged. His version of what happened is five men sat down on the subway car next to/near him and one said “Give me 5 dollars.” He felt he was about to get mugged and said “I have 5 dollars for each of you” pulled his hand gun and start firing.
Also if I recall correctly he stated afterwards he looked a one of his assailants lying wounded on the floor and said “You look like you are doing OK, here have another” and shot him again.

Regardless of feeling remorse, I think most here on THR believe if you are threatened and fear for your life or the life of others you shoot to stop the threat. Once you know the threat is stopped (has run away, has surrendered, is dead, is wounded to the point they are not able to harm anyone) you stop shooting.

 

[yeti]

To call Berni Goetz "subway Killer" would be to ignore the fact that he killed no one. He was the Subway Shooter or the Subway Vigilante, but not a killer.

I always felt that it was a good shoot, and I guess the jury at his trial pretty much agreed. Goetz's biggest problem was and is that he is a bit of a flake, and comes across that way. It's easy to believe that a guy who keeps a squirrel as a pet in a NYC apartment might not be the most stable human to ever strap on a gun and ride the subway.

If you can look past his flakey personality, the sometimes outright stupid things he says, and his initial flight after the shootings, his actions still seem to stand up as a good shoot.

 

[c919]

I'm glad he came out of his situation unharmed instead of the thugs, but he's an idiot.

Watching an interview with him is annoying. He comes off as a real nut-job.

Either way, I don't have any problem with his shooting, per se. I wouldn't have reacted the way he did, but I don't think anyone lost sleep over a few thugs getting shot. Now his actions after the fact are what make him bothersome to me.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Bernie Goetz was illegally in possession of a handgun in NYC. He was a criminal at the time of the attack.

Barry Allen, Troy Canty, James Ramseur, Darrell Cabey admitted that their purpose that day was to break into video game machines for money. Cabey also later admitted (out of court) that they had intended to mug Goetz. They can all be considered criminals, as well.

Goetz drew and fired with no justification for lethal force. There was no evidence of imminent threat of physical attack. He shot all four of his alleged assailants, including one who was seated at the time of the shooting.

Goetz then fled the scene and was a fugitive for 9 days. He destroyed the weapon used in the shooting. Later, he turned himself in.

Fully Mirandized, he made the following statements to police:

My intention was to murder them, to hurt them, to make them suffer as much as possible.

If I had more bullets, I would have shot 'em all again and again. My problem was I ran out of bullets.

My opinion? 5 criminals on a subway train have an altercation. One shoots the other four in anger, then flees the scene. By virtue of being white, he serves 8 months in prison. He goes on to a normal bourgeois life, save for all those media appearances and cultural references.

Two of the four criminals shot continue illustrious careers of petty crime. One is paraplegic. Don't know anything about the fourth.

Basically, no one looks good on this one. Not the shooter, not the victims, and not New York City. It was a careless, dirty shoot. That those shot were not pillars of the community doesn't make it any cleaner.

Bernie Goetz should not be held out as a positive example of the armed citizen.

 

[InkEd]

Not a positive example for sure. Less of a criminal than the muggers but still broke several laws.

 

[kingpin008]

I think LemmyCaution pretty much nailed it.

 

[yeti]

Cabey also later admitted (out of court) that they had intended to mug Goetz. They can all be considered criminals, as well.

Goetz drew and fired with no justification for lethal force. There was no evidence of imminent threat of physical attack. He shot all four of his alleged assailants, including one who was seated at the time of the shooting.

4 guys armed with screwdriver/s, demanding money, in a space where any means of retreat was impossible seems to come pretty close to meeting the requirements of a justifiable shoot under NY State law. Well, at least the Jury thought so. I guess that is really the only opinion that counts, at least if I were the shooter that is the one I would be most concerned about.

NY Self-defense Laws

Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat
by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

 

[MrOldLude]

This topic reminds me that I need to work on shot placement drills.

 

[burley]

A man defended his self. Nobody else was there on his behalf. One against four. His hand was forced and he played it. Very well. You reap what you sow, he did 8 months and the bad guys got shot. he could have just been another victom, instead, he rose the nations awareness and NY made the subways a safer place. Shame it had to take that to make it happen.

 

[CZguy]

LemmyCaution, In post number six took all of the emotion out of the case and reduced it to simple facts. Excellent.

 

[Franco2shoot]

The show "Aftermath" went back to pre shooting. That was where he was mugged, and I believe became paranoid after the incident. After this incident he had applied for a permit as he was transfering sizable sizes of money as well as merchandise. The system denied him the right to self protect. The people he shot, were threatening, and were teaming up according to witness testimony. Three of the four he shot went on to serious criminal activities including Rape of a pregnant 18 yr old. The utterance of "you don't look so bad, here's another" was never substantiated by witnesses accounts, and actually came from Bernie thinking he said that but his lawyer successfully argued that in his state of mind it was most likely never uttered. Press made a big deal of it to sway public opinion. (there's a shock)

I wasn't there, so I don't know but I did find the guy a few bricks short of a full load based on the interview. For us shooters, its an interesting video. William Shantener - Aftermath.


KKKKFL

 

[Tommygunn]

William Shantner

William Shantener

That's >2< It's WILLIAM SHATNER

Sorry to be pedantic ...but, REALLY!

 

[Frank Ettin]

...4 guys armed with screwdriver/s, demanding money, in a space where any means of retreat was impossible seems to come pretty close to meeting the requirements of a justifiable shoot under NY State law. Well, at least the Jury thought so...

This is a very important point. The jury in fact acquitted Goetz of assault. The jury accepted his claim the he shot in justified self defense. So it was a "good shoot."

Goetz went to jail on the weapons charge. He didn't have a permit for his gun.

 

[habeas]

Bernhard Goetz

LemmyCaution totally nails it. I lived in NYC in 1984 at the time of the shooting. It was a different place than it is today: it was much more dangerous. I rode the subway system at all hours. I never had a problem, but I never looked for it either. I believe that Mr. Goetz wanted to use his .38 on that day.

Two things that are often overlooked: the potential danger in which he placed the other passengers who were in the Subway car, either by stray bullets or by the panic he caused by firing in a relatively enclosed space. (And what if the other thugs had been armed and started firing back . . .) The other thing that people forget is that he fled the scene. He ran down the subway tracks and then he drove around New England for more than a week until he finally turned himself in. I think that even he recognized that his actions were not justifiable.

I have no sympathy for the "victims." They were also criminals. But Bernie Goetz? He was no hero.

 

[kayak-man]

Goetz drew and fired with no justification for lethal force. There was no evidence of imminent threat of physical attack. He shot all four of his alleged assailants, including one who was seated at the time of the shooting.

I think that (and feel free to call me naive or ignorant, as long as you offer a counterpoint) this was a dirty shoot, but if Geotz had waited a bit, it might have been a clean shoot. Geotz got lucky, the four guys had actually been planning on mugging him. If he had just waited for them to pull their screwdriver, or anything to confirm that he was actually in danger, he might have been justified.

The two lessons that I took away from this shooting were:
1) You need to watch your six, both legally and tactically. If someone scary looking is walking towards you, you can't just draw on them because they are a possible threat. At the same time, you have to act before its too late. theres a middle ground between "Ooh, scary people," and "I'm surrounded by angry people pointing guns at me." That middle ground is when you need to draw - after you've confirmed that there is a serious threat and lethal force is necessary, but before the odds are stacked too much against you.

2) Do not make assumptions about people. In one of his books, Massad Ayoob states that in some states lethal force is justified in stopping a person from fleeing who has committed a violent crime. But he has to have actually committed a crime. People run from violence, and the guy that you just saw shoot someone may have been acting in self defense and, attempting to distance themselves from the threat, ran. I'm not saying that this is what Geotz did, just that his fleeing the seen reminded me of this, and its a good thing to keep in mind.

3) Do not waive your Miranda rights. It says "can be used against you." No where does it say that anything you say in the interview can be used to keep you out of prison. This goes double for statements like "I just wanted to hurt them," and "If I had more bullets, I would have shot them again." Also, don't say stuff during the shoot, like "You look like your doing alright, have another," or "Yea, I've got $5 for each of you." If you want a snappy one liner, before the shooting try "STOP!" or "DROP THE GUN," maybe "Get Out of My House!" Afterwards, I think that "YOU (Point at the person) Call 911" and "Officer, these men attacked me, I will sign the complaint. Evidence is over there, witnesses are over there. I think I'm going into shock, I need to go to the hospital," and "I would like to speak with my attorney," are also probably pretty good ones.

Just my .02, YMMV

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson

 

[Mr.Davis]

Bernie was denied his natural right to self defense by the city of New York, which also failed to protect him. There's no question that the four thugs would have robbed him, and any reasonable person would have felt in grave danger based on the threatening posture, disparity of force presented by the thugs.

Goetz was disobeying political law and observing natural law by carrying a gun illegally.

I believe he was justified in shooting the first two thugs. The third disengaged and attempted to flee, so shooting that thug was unjust by any measure. The fourth wasn't even directly involved in the attack, and was shot where he sat on the far end of the subway, and wound up paralyzed. The much publicized "have another" line was said after the initial shots, and while Goetz claims he wanted to shoot one man again, he did not - he was out of ammo.

Goetz should have been acquitted in the shooting of the first two assailants and sent to jail for shooting the next two, in my opinion.

Those claiming the shoot was totally dirty are ignoring 1) the natural right to self defense and carrying a weapon for that purpose, and 2) the virtually unassailable fact that Goetz was being actively robbed by means of the threat of force, by a group of men armed with screwdrivers.

However, as I said, Goetz's actions were not totally aboveboard, and he should have been punished for shooting two non-threats and acquitted for shooting the first two.

 

[HOWARD J]

There should be more people around that will shoot to stop.
Street crime around here took a nose dive when they passed CCW now CPL//////

 

[gilfo]

I lived in NYC during those times. Even the punks didn't look you in the eyes in the days before they finally caught up with good old Bernie. His actions right or wrong still had everybody that ever sat in a subway car in fear hoping he was in their subway car late that night on the way home.

 

[yeti]

LemmyCaution, In post number six took all of the emotion out of the case and reduced it to simple facts. Excellent.

Reduced to facts, colored with opinion, while both twisting fact and opinion and leaving out other pertinent facts.

Bernie Goetz was illegally in possession of a handgun in NYC. He was a criminal at the time of the attack.

He was a criminal because NYC made him so. A victim of a past violent crime (in which he suffered a good amount of physical harm), with no criminal past, no evidence of mental instability (being eccentric is not the same as being crazy), no evidence of drug or alcohol abuse, is denied permission to carry a weapon for no other reason than NYC denies almost everyone permission.

They can all be considered criminals, as well

Goetz WAS a criminal because NYC made him one, those 4, who were carrying weapons, admit they were going out to commit crimes, admit they were going to mug Goetz, and who all already (at the time of the failed mugging attempt) had criminal records, are only CONSIDERED criminals?

There was no evidence of imminent threat of physical attack.

4 armed men (even if they were unarmed, which they were NOT 4 against 1 is a fairly substantial disparity of force) demand money from you, maybe they should have said please? I believe the threat of imminent attack is fairly evident... it sure was not "give us your money or we are going to go away and ask someone else." He did not have to wait until he was stabbed or beaten to REASONABLY BELIEVE he was in imminent danger of grave physical assault. 4 against one is enough, he did not need to actually see a weapon or wait until one was used against him, it was totally reasonable for him to believe his life was in peril. Also eyewitness testimony generally agreed that the four men were aggressive and threatening.

From the instant he pulled his gun until he fled the scene there is enough confusion that we really don't know what was actually said and done past the fact that he shot all 4 of his attackers and no one else. A jury sure seemed to feel he was justified in shooting, and of everything that may have happened, or could have happened, or even that did happen, the one indisputable fact is that the jury found it was a good shoot.

One shoots the other four in anger

He sure did not fire in the spirit of friendship and camaraderie. Except in the rarefied air of the world of legal niceties, I don't see why we so cavalierly dismiss anger in a self defense shooting. I hope I am smart enough to keep quiet about it, but I am pretty sure if I shoot someone I was probably a touch angry with them, at least fairly annoyed, but I am not going to admit it. Anger is not all that bad of emotion when you are scared and need to fight for your life.

By virtue of being white, he serves 8 months in prison. He goes on to a normal bourgeois life

I don't quite know how to take that first part. It could go either way. Did he only get 8 months in prison because he was white, or did he get sent to prison only because he was white?

For the second, there seems to have been very little 'normal' about Goetz life before or after the incident.

He fled the scene, he destroyed the gun, he said a lot of stupid things, he lives a weird life, he is no poster boy for just about anything. We don't get to pick and choose who a criminal decides to victimize. It would be nice if they only went after people like Mas, or Cooper, or Cirillo, but for obvious reasons they try not to. Casper Milquetoast seems to be a more convenient target. And sometimes Casper is good with his gun but can't seem to stop shooting off his mouth.

Being a stupid, outspoken, eccentric does not diminish the fact he took on 4 thugs intending to make him their victim, and of the 5 people involved in the incident he was the only one to get off that subway car under his own power. And a Jury did not find him guilty of taking so much as one illegal shot.

A good shoot by a rather easy to dislike guy that did not know when to keep his mouth shut.

 

[Zoogster]

Well I typed up a long response but then noticed it was pretty close to what Yeti wrote.


The shoot was justified, the gun possession was illegal, the shooter said and all the wrong things and took actions that you expect of someone guilty.
But remember he was guilty, guilty of illegally possessing a means of self defense in a city that had banned the carrying of firearms and many other things.
He knew this and knew he was a criminal the moment he chose to carry a gun, and knew others would know he was a criminal when he pulled it out, nevermind used it
The City of New York had already decided he was a criminal and this likely played a big role in him saying all the stupid things he did.
The moment he chose to carry something that gave him the capability to defend himself against multiple stronger thugs, he chose to be a criminal under the law.
He may have thought he was going to prison for a long time, was angry at the situation and just wanted to get his defiant opinion out there, and the emotions of this eccentric person likely exaggerated his statements.

Also if I recall correctly he stated afterward, he looked a one of his assailants lying wounded on the floor and said “You look like you are doing OK, here have another” and shot him again.

He didn't shoot him again, the gun was empty. Though it does once again make him look even worse.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Let me be more clear:

The screwdrivers were found by paramedics hidden in the clothing of two of the men who were shot after the fact. No one has asserted in court that the screwdrivers were ever brandished as weapons. So let's just drop the 'armed with screwdrivers' line of defense. Goetz's victims were no angels, but they were his victims.

Bernhard Goetz was, in fact, a criminal. There is no High Road defense of his actions. He broke the law. It is a bad law, but it is the law. We can't pick and choose who gets to break the law and who doesn't, if we wish the law to have any legitimacy.

There are several times I've been in a bad NYC neighborhood (had to go there for work) and had someone demand "give me X dollars." A flat and emphatic "No." was all it took to end that conversation. "Give me five dollars" does not a mugging make. Given the layout of NYC subway cars, Goetz was not cornered. He had the other four criminals cornered, in fact. Cabey was shot while sitting in the narrow seat behind the conductor's booth. This is a corner at the end of the car. The only way one can shoot at it is if one is standing toward the center of the car, with every exit from the car available to you and 50-60 feet of space full of other passengers to retreat behind you.

Had the law been right, Goetz, and many other citizens would have gone legally armed. Petty street punks like his victims would not screw around, knowing that the city had not disarmed their intended victims. The whole episode might never have happened.

As it is, the jury got it all wrong. They should have let him skate on the weapons charge and there should have been a push in NYC liberalize concealed carry in the wake of this incident. But they should also have convicted him of attempted murder. It was a dirty shoot. Goetz was punishing these guys for the mugging someone else perpetrated against him earlier.

Again, no one is clean in this narrative. Goetz, Canty, Cabey, Allen, Ramseur, NYC's gun control laws, the NYC jury that heard the case and the citizens of NYC who continue to believe that defending themselves and their community is someone else's job. Everyone did badly. There are no heroes to be found here.

 

[doc540]

As much as I like to see a thug get what he deserves, I never really saw Goetz as a hero.

I think Bernie could've managed his personal issues better prior to the event.

He seems to have "snapped" and "gone postal" and having done so caused himself more grief than necessary.

I was mugged years ago and beaten to within an inch of my life by a gang of young thugs.

Since that time, I hope I've dealt with my "helpless victim" and "vengeful rage" issues enough that I don't "snap" the next time I feel threatened, but, instead, act with awareness and strategic intention, for lack of a better phrase.

It's the difference between being paranoid and being prepared.

Hope that makes some sense to someone.

 

[alohachris]

IMO, Bernard Goetz's shoot was a clean shoot right up to the point he followed one of his assailants after he fled, then shot him again. At that point, he went beyond the bounds of self-defense and assumed the role of the aggressor.


IIRC, he was aquited of the felony charge of attempted murder, but was found guilty of misdemeanor possession of a deadly weapon by a mostly white jury. He lost a later civil case, filed in a mostly ethnic jurisdiction, that ended with a multi-million dollar judgement against him.