gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/02/85)
Newsflash: the four boys that New York's "subway vigilante" shot were *not* killed. Three of them will be able to leave the hospital this week, but the fourth is now a paraplegic. Groetz, the guy who did this, turned himself in in New Hampshire on December 31. He was mugged four years ago, applied for a handgun license, and was turned down. Therefore his weapon is illegal. The big question now is: is he a Charles Bronson, or did he merely act in self-defense? Interviews with his friends and neighbors (who were very surprised) indicate that he is an "average kinda guy", and is not the type of person who would make a hobby of seeking out criminals and shooting them. Then again, he doesn't act like the type of person who would shoot someone at all. Now that we've had the play-by-play, here is the color: I have to agree with the law on this one. If he was acting in self-defense, then he was almost, and perhaps completely, justified. However, if he is a vigilante, then I strongly disapprove. Yes, I saw \Death Wish II/. And I thought the movie was extremely stupid. This guy, fed up with (non-fatal) criminal acts against his friends/relatives, goes around and blows a bunch of young, able-bodied men away. Careful analysis of conflict between street gangs demonstrates that this sort of revenge does not succeed in stopping, or even checking, violence. In fact, it breeds violence. And who is Charles Bronson to choose the innocent and the guilty? I'd much prefer the law to come from at least three men (preferably nine or twelve), and I want the whole process to to get lots of press coverage. See \The Star Chamber/ (starring Kirk Douglas' son Michael) for more details. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Ducka you heada--Lowla Brigida" -Bridge in Venice (from Warner Brothers cartoon)