geb@cadre.UUCP (12/28/84)
The manhunt is on! Some poor bastard had the gall to shoot four punks in NYC who attacked him with sharpened screwdrivers, demanding money. Now the police artist's drawing of him is on nationwide television. Public enemy number one. If the punks had murdered him he would have been lucky to make the back pages of the NY newspapers, and the "authorities" would have spent far less money investigating his murder than trying to track him down for daring to defend himself. I doubt if hizzoner Mayor Kock would have gone on TV to denounce the punks, nor would syndicated columnists say that we have a sick society for allowing this scum to roam around harrassing people. So why should someone defending his life and property exasperate the establishment so? Because of the groundswell of popular support. That is why "liberal" movie critics hated "Death Wish" with Charles Bronson, too, I'll bet. I just hope the witnesses had the good sense to give the police the wrong description.
isis@utzoo.UUCP (n) (12/31/84)
The author From: geb@cadre.UUCP Message-ID: <121@cadre.UUCP> writes: > The manhunt is on! > Some poor bastard had the gall to shoot four punks > in NYC who attacked him with sharpened screwdrivers, > demanding money. Now the police artist's drawing > of him is on nationwide television. Public enemy number > one. The man clearly defended himself in a life threating situation. He had had that right. Why didn't he stay around? After all he is a "hero" now. By avoiding the inherent legal responsibilities, he has diminished the effectiveness his action. He fled for the same reason that criminals flee from crimes that they commit. He didn't want to get CAUGHT!!! > If the punks had murdered him he would have been > lucky to make the back pages of the NY newspapers, and > the "authorities" would have spent far less money investigating > his murder than trying to track him down for daring > to defend himself. I doubt if hizzoner Mayor Kock (sic) > would have gone on TV to denounce the punks, nor would > syndicated columnists say that we have a sick society > for allowing this scum to roam around harrassing people. It made the press for the same reason that -> MAN BITES DOG <- would. The man from the artist's drawing a friend commented, "He got hit up, because he looks like a wimp. (My friend has accepted the popular culture definition of what a wimp is supposed to look like. I don't agree, so no flames please). If this became a commom occurence, would it still rated as newsworthy? I would say not. This is an single isolated incident that caught the media interest, hence our interest. I can hear this conversation being repeated all over North America: "Ester, imagine one of us standing up to the scum." The man who ever he is, has become a symbol. Shouldn't a person be required to stick around, just as if the person has had an accident with their car causing personal injury? > So why should someone defending his life and property > exasperate the establishment so? Because of the groundswell > of popular support. That is why "liberal" movie critics > hated "Death Wish" with Charles Bronson, too, I'll bet. > I just hope the witnesses had the good sense to give > the police the wrong description. Popular support has nothing to do with the "establishment's exasperation." The "estabishment" can only favour things that maintain the status quo, and respect for law. No matter what Mayor Koch privately feels, the office of dicates that he can not support an action that circumvents due process. The real question at stake here is, "Was the man right to defend himself, and avoid the legal responsibilities. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (12/31/84)
Re the NYC subway hero....
If there's anything the police and prosecutors will persecute more than
a do-badder, it's a do-gooder.
-- Norman Diamond
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/31/84)
Not that I object to self defense, but the story I read in my local paper said that the sharpened screwdrivers were not brandished, but found on the wounded bodies of the assailants. If that's the case it puts a different light on the matter. If somebody actually pulls a knife or gun, any reasonable available means of self-defense can be considered. If they just come up to you and demand money, it's ok to pull the gun and say back off, but not to shoot first, ask questions later. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (12/31/84)
From what I hear, in typical NYC fashion, no one *saw* anything. The description on nationwide TV is from one of the punks who survived long enough to give it. Too bad. They'll probably even catch the poor bastard, now that the FBI is involved. Last I heard (from a friend in NYC), they mayor assigned a couple THOUSAND cops to the case, and everyone in NYC thinks this guy's a big hero. You can bet the same legal system that protects thieves, murderers and rapists is going to work overtime grinding this guy into the pavement... -JCP-
pal@crystal.UUCP (12/31/84)
> The manhunt is on! > Some poor bastard had the gall to shoot four punks > in NYC who attacked him with sharpened screwdrivers, > demanding money. Now the police artist's drawing > of him is on nationwide television. Public enemy number Difficult to comment without knowing details, but it seems to me that a person with a gun should be able to dissuade someone with a screwdriver from robbing him/her without killing four people, unless the four were real idiots and persisted in their attack even after the gun was produced and perhaps even after one or more them were shot. If such disregard for their own life was indeed displayed, then of course the man was justified in responding as he did, but I doubt if the police would be after him if such were the case. If not, sorry, he deserves to be considered a criminal. Of course you may feel that muggers deserve to die, but I don't think the law agrees, at least not without due process. Sorry, unless there is evidence that the killer's response was reasonable in the circumstances, he *is* a criminal, and a dangerous one. Would you applaud a driver who deliberately rammed a car that cut in front of his own, even though s/he could avoid it? Taking the law into one's own hands is *not* commendable. Anil Pal U. of Wisconsin - Madison
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (12/31/84)
I have already seen or heard several conflicting versions of this
incident. Here in Canada we have a doctrine called something like
"appropriate force", and I expect that most of the (51* different(!))
criminal codes in the US work the same way. This doctrine means that
your self-defense can't use deadly force unless you have good reason
to fear that the adversary will at least try to do griveous bodily
harm to you. Otherwise, you are committing (or attempting, as the case
may be) some class of murder or manslaughter. Also, at least in
Canada, you can't provoke somebody into attacking you with a weapon
and then claim self-defense; or at least, you could lose if you do.
The point is, it MATTERS exactly what happened. And unless this hero,
or murderer, is located and either tried or announced to be cleared,
the best way we'll have of finding out what happened is from the press.
So could somebody with access to the New York Times or other such
relatively authoritative source post, verbatim, their description of
what is known about what really happened? I admit to not hearing about
the whole thing at the time.
[I am not a lawyer, despite the Organization: line]
*Can someone confirm my assumption that DC, not being part of any state, has
its own criminal code?
{ allegra | decvax | duke | ihnp4 | linus | watmath | ... } !utzoo!lsuc!msb
Mark Brader also uw-beaver!utcsrgv!lsuc!msbgeb@cadre.UUCP (01/01/85)
Well, they caught the great criminal! Now I suspect an attempt will be made to crucify him. Of course it could be that he will turn out to be a "real" criminal and not just an everyday joe who happened to be packing a rod. Did he have a right to defend himself? I would say yes. Did he have a right to carry a gun in New York? Again, I would say yes, but the law in New York says no. Should he have stuck around to be arrested? Well obviously yes, using hindsight now that he's been caught. I'm not so sure the armchair quarterbacks who say he should have stayed to face the music would have the guts to do so themselves, especially if they had a realistic idea about how bad the NYC establishment is going to go after this guy. I hope he gets off for the self defense even if it turns out he didn't have a legitimate reason to carry the gun, but if he doesn't have good lawyers he won't. It will be interesting to see what happens.
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (01/02/85)
Perhaps the guy didn't stick around because even if he's innocent on grounds of self defense, he couldn't afford the legal battle (I doubt the ACLU's ;awyers would take his case), or even he might have feared reprisals against his family by friends of the men he shot. There are a lot of reasons for running away. While a lot of people may applaud him, there are probably a few who would try to get even. And if somebody wants to kill you bad enough in this country, they can certainly do it. I remember when I back on my family's farm several years ago and we were being harrassed by a bunch of hoodlums (killed our dogs, broke into our house, made threatening phone calls, etc...), I was awakened one night by the sound of prowlers outside. My bedroom was on the second floor, so I grabbed my rifle, which I kept in my bedroom, loaded it, and went to the window to look around. I saw 2 T-shirts in the vineyard, and put the crosshairs right on the center of one. I thought to myself, if I fire, who is going to be in more trouble, me or that guy. Even if I fired and hit him in the shoulder or leg to stop him so the police could interrogate him, would this be considered 'unnecessary use of force'? Could he sue me? Perhaps I should have killed him right there. Would I be arrested? What would happen to my family? I put the gun down. Before I had even gotten up, my mother had called the sheriff. It took them about 15 minutes to get there, despite my mom telling them that I was armed and going to take care of the situation myself if they didn't get there quickly. They showed up about 5 minutes after I lost sight of the punks. It was a full moon that night, and very clear, so I had a very good view. They showed up in force, 5 cars at once. They fanned out and looked around, one deputy saw them and gave chase on foot, but the punks reached their car and took off leaving the deputy on foot and out of range of fire. After 3 months and 2 more dogs and a lot of other garbage, it stopped all of sudden. I never knew why or who, and still don't. They were really scum too, when they killed my dogs, they just tied them up and slit open their bellies, or shot them in the leg, never allowing a quick death. Once they put ground glass in their dog food. I wonder what the people are responsible are doing now. Perahps I should have fired. I don't blame that guy for not sticking around. With idiots like Koch running things, who knows what would have happened. I understand he's turned himself in. Koch has had him charged with 4 counts of attempted murder. His name is in all the papers, and even gang members can read names. I feel sorry for the guy. I dount he'll be found guilty, no jury in the country would convict him. But what else happens to him may not be so nice. Milo
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (01/02/85)
> > The manhunt is on! > > Some poor bastard had the gall to shoot four punks > > in NYC who attacked him with sharpened screwdrivers, > > demanding money. Now the police artist's drawing > > of him is on nationwide television. Public enemy number > > Difficult to comment without knowing details, but it seems to me that a > person with a gun should be able to dissuade someone with a screwdriver > from robbing him/her without killing four people, unless the four > were real idiots Hold on. He did not kill them, only wounded them. Personally, I think he must have been a lousy shot. Maybe he should carry a .45... By the way, the scum he shot all had police records. -- AMD assumes no responsibility for anything I may say here. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5790 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (01/02/85)
From: pal@crystal.UUCP >Of course you may feel that muggers deserve to die, but I don't think the law >agrees, at least not without due process. Sorry, unless there is evidence that >the killer's response was reasonable in the circumstances, he *is* a criminal, >and a dangerous one. I think the assertion is that his life was in danger; screwdrivers sharpened to points can do really nasty things, and I think the law backs the use of force in kind (i.e. if I am threatened with what I would reasonably percieve as deadly force, I may use deadly force in self defense. The 'reasonably percieve' is there so I don't have to determine that the gun I'm being threatened with is loaded, or whatever...). I don't know the details of the case in question, so I have no idea whether he was defending himself or taking advantage of the situation to recklessly kill four people. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (01/02/85)
> ..... but it seems to me that a person > with a gun should be able to dissuade someone with a screwdriver from robbing > him/her without killing four people, unless the four were real idiots and > persisted in their attack even after the gun was produced and perhaps even > after one or more them were shot. 1. No one was killed. 2. It's easy to second guess this fellow, he should have done this or that, whatever. I suspect that in a crisis situation like being mugged, ones actions are not entirely rational. 3. He was certainly wrong for leaving the scene. He is a criminal, in that his gun was not licensed. Under New York law he will be going to jail for a year. 4. There is a fine line between self-defense and vigilantism(sp?), which seems to have been confused here. If a person resists a criminal attack on ones person or property, that person acts within the law. If, however, a person, after the fact, attacks, or seeks to punish the perpetrator(s), then that is taking the law into one's own hands. You can shoot the robber in the act of robbing, but you can't decide afterwards to go out and find the creep and shoot him.
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (01/02/85)
In reference to the chap who was about to blast the punks who were harrasing his family, killing his dogs, etc, I can't help but wonder what his story would sound like had he shot and killed one of the "T shirts" only to find it was a member of his family who had gone to investigate noise in the yard or, perhaps, an off-duty policeman who was there for the same reason. Brint
gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (01/02/85)
He turned himself in. Damn! That was his first mistake. The Criminal Justice System will turn their criminal justice upon him and what comes out the other end won't be worth mopping up. Oh well, the NYC zoo will still exist within the IRT and IND. I was hoping that a little fear would spread to the garbage who terrorize the citizens of the Big Apple. No such luck.
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/02/85)
> it seems to me that a person > with a gun should be able to dissuade someone > with a screwdriver from robbing > him/her without killing four people, > unless the four were real idiots and > persisted in their attack even after the gun was produced > and perhaps even after one or more them were shot. This is great from your armchair, but unfortunately, once the fireworks start you get awfully excited and even police officers who have had a lot of training find it a little difficult to contain themselves. An unprovoked deadly threat was produced by the (sharpened) screwdriver wielders, at that point the one threatened had the right to respond with deadly force. True, they might have left him alone, once they saw the gun, but then again, if he wavered, they also may have tried to surround him and he could have easily been killed, four against one, even if he did have the superior weapon. Should he just have submitted? Well, usually they don't kill the victim if he has enough money on him, but then again a lot of times they do, just for the hell of it. If he could safely put them out of action, that would be the safest course. > If such disregard for their own life was indeed displayed, > then of course the man was justified in responding as he did, > but I doubt if the police would be after him if such were the case. Yes, I'm sure the police would then just say "run along..." > Of course you may feel that muggers deserve to die, ... It isn't a matter of whether they deserve it or not. There isn't time to try them on the street. If you think your life is in danger, you have to make your move. > Would you applaud a driver who deliberately rammed a car > that cut in front of his own, even though s/he could avoid it? > Taking the law into one's own hands is *not* commendable. It's never ceases to amaze me, the incredibly inappropriate analogies people think up! The proper analogy would be: would you applaud the driver who rammed his car into a motorcycle whose occupants were threatening him with a shotgun if he didn't pull off the road! Yes, I would. Would the police go after him? I'm sure they would.
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (01/03/85)
> In reference to the chap who was about to blast the punks who were > harrasing his family, killing his dogs, etc, I can't help but wonder > what his story would sound like had he shot and killed one of the "T > shirts" only to find it was a member of his family who had gone to > investigate noise in the yard or, perhaps, an off-duty policeman who was > there for the same reason. > > Brint The rest of my family were in the room next to mine. I lived on a farm that was way out in the boonies, and the house is about a mile from the nearest road. Nobody comes around unless they come through a driveway or sneak thru the mile long trek thru the vineyard. Off duty police officer? No way. As for neighbors and folks, they are equally far away. When they notice something, they always call first. Out this far away, everyone always deals with trouble themselves, if you wait for the police to get there, your throat would be slit before they got in the driveway. Life in rural areas tends to be a lot different than in urban ones... Milo
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (01/03/85)
Perhaps the law assumes that punks were carrying sharpened screwdrivers
because they didn't intend to use them. Therefore Goetz was not entitled
to use force in his self-defence.
After all, don't bank robbers carry guns because they don't intend to use
them either? As proof that the guns are only for show and not for use,
they are never loaded, right?
-- Norman Diamond
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."albert@harvard.ARPA (David Albert) (01/03/85)
> I expect that most of the (51* different(!)) > > *Can someone confirm my assumption that DC, not being part of any state, has > its own criminal code? > > Mark Brader D.C., not being part of any state, uses the Federal criminal code. Thus, there are in fact 51 criminal codes in the U.S. David Albert -- ihnp4!ut-sally!harvard!albert (ARPAnet)
prg@mgweed.UUCP (Phil Gunsul) (01/04/85)
[Bang bang..] Maybe the reason he did not stay is because he was running low on ammunition! I don't think I would have stayed either, probably would have turned myself in... Phil Gunsul
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/04/85)
If this guy was really defending himself, all the power to him. But why has EVERYBODY just assumed that Goetz is the hero urbanites long for? We still don't know whether he was a good citizen valiantly defending himself from hoodlums, or whether he was a homicidal maniac whose victims happened to be known deliquents. David Rubin
ag5@pucc-k (Henry Mensch) (01/04/85)
<<>> >>He turned himself in. Damn! That was his first mistake. >>The Criminal Justice System will turn their criminal justice >>upon him and what comes out the other end won't be worth mopping >>up. Not at all... If he turned himself in when this whole ordeal happened, it mightn't have gotten so blown out of proportion and there may have been a possibility that his life would have been made less difficult than it will be... He has at least a year of jail ahead of him <no plea bargaining, parole, etc ... that's the gist of the illegal handgun law in New York City> >>Oh well, the NYC zoo will still exist within the IRT and IND. >>I was hoping that a little fear would spread to the garbage >>who terrorize the citizens of the Big Apple. No such luck. New York City isn't *that* bad -- I was born and raised there, and lived there for twenty years. I found that I was a crime victim more often *outside* the city (like when my home in Syracuse was broken into twice) than I was inside the city. I LOVE NEW YORK! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services {ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- "If you can't be good, be careful. If you can't be careful, give me a call..."
tierney@fortune.UUCP (Charles Tierney) (01/04/85)
Well, after reading the San Francisco Comical (A Hearst-Type Fish Wrap)
this morning, I shall come clean of all the information I know about
this case.
The man, Hugo Goetz, was mugged 4 years ago.
At the time, he said words to the effect of "Never Again!"
The Asst. Atty. General of New Hampshire (where Our Hero
hid) has been said that Goetz's comment could be construed
as PREMEDITATION.
On the subway, what happened (according to the Comical) was
this:
The four "punks" asked Our Hero for a match,
they then asked him for $5 to play pinball,
Our Hero then shot them. The NYC Chief of Police
said he stopped shotting when he ran out of bullets!
Not only that, but the famous sharpened screwdrivers?
They WERE IN THE KIDS POCKETS!!! NOT THIER HANDS!!
They were never brandished!
So, it should be a VERY interestin trial.
The bail money for Goetz has been flowing in from New Yorkers.
Personally, I do not think a jury of peers (New Yorkers) would
convict the man.
Charlie Tierney (415) 595-8444
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{ hpda harpo ihnp4 cbosgd } \
DEC { decvax !decwrl !amd } > !fortune!forclt!charlie
Berkeley { ucbvax !amd } /
Fortune Systems, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, California 94065
-----------------------------------------------------------------------ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (01/04/85)
> > I expect that most of the (51* different(!)) > > > > *Can someone confirm my assumption that DC, not being part of any state, has > > its own criminal code? > > > > Mark Brader > > D.C., not being part of any state, uses the Federal criminal code. Thus, > there are in fact 51 criminal codes in the U.S. > > David Albert Last I heard, there were no U.S. federal statutes against murder and such other crimes. (Though there are federal statutes against interstate flight to avoid prosecution by a state, crossing state lines for immoral purposes, etc.) Therefore D.C either has an additional criminal code or it allows murder within its borders. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
faunt@hplabs.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (01/05/85)
I don't care if they were brandishing weapons or not, four to one odds would be enough for me to consider my life threatened. How many rounds did the guy have in his pistol? As I understand it, he shot two of them, and then had to turn around, because the others were behind him, shot at them, and then turned back around, and shot at the first two again. If one of them was moving AT ALL, in that situation, it sounds reasonable to me. My lovers ex-husband was mugged twice, in Boston, by people who "asked for a match". She says he should have learned from the first time. -- ....!hplabs!faunt faunt%hplabs@csnet-relay HP is not responsible for anything I say here. In fact, it may have been generated by a noisy telephone line.
2141smh@aluxe.UUCP (henning) (01/05/85)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA aluxe!2141smh > Last I heard, there were no U.S. federal statutes against murder and such > other crimes. The last I heard, life was a civil right and denying a civil right was a federal offense.
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (01/06/85)
> > In reference to the chap who was about to blast the punks who were > > harrasing his family, killing his dogs, etc, I can't help but wonder > > what his story would sound like had he shot and killed one of the "T > > shirts" only to find it was a member of his family who had gone to > > investigate noise in the yard or, perhaps, an off-duty policeman who was > > there for the same reason. > > > > Brint > > The rest of my family were in the room next to mine. I lived on a farm > that was way out in the boonies, and the house is about a mile from the nearest road. > Nobody comes around unless they come through a driveway or sneak thru > the mile long trek thru the vineyard. Off duty police officer? > No way. As for neighbors and folks, they are equally far away. When > they notice something, they always call first. Out this far away, > everyone always deals with trouble themselves, if you wait for the police > to get there, your throat would be slit before they got in the driveway. > > Life in rural areas tends to be a lot different than in urban ones... > > Milo So, it is ABSOLUTELY SURE that anyone in your yard at that time of night is on such evil business that he deserves to die? There is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that you would EVER shoot an innocent person? Amazing. B
2141smh@aluxe.UUCP (henning) (01/07/85)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA aluxe!2141smh > ... way out in the boonies, and ... about a mile from the nearest road. > Nobody comes around unless they come through a driveway or sneak thru > the mile long trek thru the vineyard. Off duty police officer? > Life in rural areas tends to be a lot different than in urban ones... You are right, life is different way out in the country. We even had a neighbor march right into our house and check to see if the phone was off the hook because he though we were on his party line. Never saw him before. People come up to my house when their car breaks down and they see a light. They come up the driveway when they miscounted driveways and get lost. They come through all the time during hunting season. Of course you have to shoot them to keep them from coming back and bothering you. :-)
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (01/07/85)
In article <3989@ucbvax.ARPA> medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) writes: > >Perhaps the guy didn't stick around because even if he's innocent >on grounds of self defense, he couldn't afford the legal battle >(I doubt the ACLU's lawyers would take his case) Surprise, surprise, Milo; CORE, a black, "liberal" civil rights group has already offered to pay for his legal defense. Makes sense, actually; altho this is a case of a white man shooting four blacks, it is also a case of a crime victim shooting four criminals. It isn't (statistically) whites who are in danger from black gangs, despite stereotypes; it's other blacks. -- "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less" -- Humpty Dumpty, the noted linguist Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (01/07/85)
> > Last I heard, there were no U.S. federal statutes against murder and such > > other crimes. > > The last I heard, life was a civil right and denying a civil right was a > federal offense. In other words, life in D.C. is only protected by civil rights legislation. Therefore murder was legal in D.C. prior to around 1965? Or, only prior to around 1865? Civil rights were not always a big issue. (Economic rights used to be the big issue, but they have been forgotten and surrendered during the last few decades.) Maybe D.C. really has, or used to have, its own criminal code. ... why doesn't anyone in D.C. answer this? -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (01/08/85)
>Well, after reading the San Francisco Comical (A Hearst-Type Fish Wrap) >this morning, I shall come clean of all the information I know about >this case.... FLAME ON!!! You really know what happened because you read about it in a San Fransisco paper???? Isn't that awfully close to the action? How about reading about it in the Tibetan Evening times? It's very easy to convict or exonerate the "Subway hero" on the basis of what we think we know happened. Is there any reason we can't be a little patient and wait for more dependable descriptions, not to mention the legal evidence that will be given in court? Will the world come to an end if we can't pass judgment this week? FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE... - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/08/85)
>It's very easy to convict or exonerate the "Subway hero" on the basis >of what we think we know happened. Is there any reason we can't be >a little patient and wait for more dependable descriptions, not to >mention the legal evidence that will be given in court? Will the >world come to an end if we can't pass judgment this week? >FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE... As the poster of the original article, my intention wasn't really to pass judgement on this particular case, but to start a discussion which explores the morality and legality of self-defense, prohibition of citizens carrying firearms for self-defense, etc. Certainly the facts of this case aren't crystal clear, but I think we got some really good responses anyway that started people thinking, especially Milo's case. Since this is just a springboard to the hypothetical, whether or not this particular man killed his attackers, whether they pulled out the screwdrivers, etc. can be considered in the arguments as if they happened.
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (01/08/85)
>From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) >different light on the matter. If somebody actually pulls a knife or gun, >any reasonable available means of self-defense can be considered. If they >just come up to you and demand money, it's ok to pull the gun and say back >off, but not to shoot first, ask questions later. >-- The real point here is the difficult question of when to use deadly force. Police are trained for years in when deadly force is justified and when it isn't. Their actions are closely scrutinized when they do shoot someone. The average person simply has not considered these questions nearly enough. And besides, they've seen too many cowboy movies. Mike Kelly
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/09/85)
> > The real point here is the difficult question of when to use deadly force. > Police are trained for years in when deadly force is justified and when it > isn't. Their actions are closely scrutinized when they do shoot someone. > The average person simply has not considered these questions nearly enough. > And besides, they've seen too many cowboy movies. > > Mike Kelly This is exactly why vigilantism is a bad idea. Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs
mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (01/09/85)
> various opinions about "subway hero"
It would have been nice if the event had been more clean-cut. What most
people who have never lived in NYC don't unsderstand is that there aren't
any police around to use force appropriately. Everyone I know who lives
or lived in the city has had their mugging experience, and the follow-up
encounter with the police:
victim: officer, I've been mugged!
officer: so what?waynez@houxh.UUCP (W.ZAKARAS) (01/09/85)
>> New York City isn't *that* bad -- I was born and raised there, >>and lived there for twenty years. I found that I was a crime victim >>more often *outside* the city (like when my home in Syracuse was >>broken into twice) than I was inside the city. >> >> I LOVE NEW YORK! >> >>-- >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services >>{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >> "If you can't be good, be careful. >> If you can't be careful, give me a call..." >> >> The only problem here is that he probably grew up in Riverdale or the Pelhams. I grew up in Queens and was mugged at least twice. I don't even want to talk about subway experiences.( very bad!) If Mr. Mensch is so sure it's safe, let me make him an offer. Why don't you let your sister or girlfriend ride the subway for an hour or two by herself. Would you feel safe while she's out there?? WayeZ...
mark@elsie.UUCP (Mark J. Miller) (01/10/85)
> > Maybe D.C. really has, or used to have, its own criminal code. > ... why doesn't anyone in D.C. answer this? > Yes, murder is illegal in DC. If you kill an average Joe Shmoo in the district, it's the city governments problem. If you get a Congress-person or Federal Official, it's both a Federal and a Local offense. When King Ronald got shot they had the option of trying Hinkley under Federal or Local law. They chose Federal only to find it was much easier to plead insanity. -- Mark J. Miller NIH/NCI/DCE/LEC UUCP: decvax!harpo!seismo!elsie!mark Phone: (301) 496-5688
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/10/85)
> The fact that our vigilante friend shot the bozos is > nasty enough, but why was he *carrying* an *illegal* handgun? > He was (unfortunately) only asking for trouble... But he TRIED to get permission to carry a weapon after his first mugging. Of course we don't know the reasons he was turned down, but I suspect they weren't good ones. He appears to be a regular citizen who had a good reason to need protection, proved by what had already happened to him. I think the right to bear arms is his constitutional right, and hope someone on his jury thinks so too. Whether he used it judiciously is another question. >> >> The real point here is the difficult question of when to use deadly force. >> Police are trained for years in when deadly force is justified and when it >> isn't. Their actions are closely scrutinized when they do shoot someone. >> The average person simply has not considered these questions nearly enough. >> And besides, they've seen too many cowboy movies. >> >> Mike Kelly > >This is exactly why vigilantism is a bad idea. > >Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs BUT...the police are in a way volunteering for hazardous duty and restrictions need to be placed on them. The citizen has a right to self defense which should not be as restrictive as the rules of police conduct. Allowances must be made for lack of training. Of course, the person should have actually been threatened, else any paranoid could legally shoot anyone. We (and mayor Koch) really need to be careful about terms. Vigilantism is unauthorized law enforcement. There are good and bad examples of this. A bad example is the KKK lynching blacks. A good example, in my opinion was seen in Chicago. In the ghetto of Woodlawn a few years ago, the police were pretty slack on law enforcement (in other words, let the blacks kill and rob each other). A group of black merchants banded together and sent out patrol cars (they had clubs but no firearms). Of course the police screamed "vigilantes". Similar vigilante efforts are the "Guardian Angels". Everyone but the police and authorities seem to approve of them. What Goetz did was apparently not vigilantism. It was self-defense. If the punks had been bothering someone else, then it might have been vigilantism.
bwm@ccice2.UUCP (Brad Miller) (01/10/85)
In article <568@tty3b.UUCP> mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: > > >From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) > >different light on the matter. If somebody actually pulls a knife or gun, > >any reasonable available means of self-defense can be considered. If they > >just come up to you and demand money, it's ok to pull the gun and say back > >off, but not to shoot first, ask questions later. > >-- > >The real point here is the difficult question of when to use deadly force. >Police are trained for years in when deadly force is justified and when it >isn't. Their actions are closely scrutinized when they do shoot someone. >The average person simply has not considered these questions nearly enough. >And besides, they've seen too many cowboy movies. > That's it. Just ask yourself -- what would "Dirty Harry" do in this situation, and act accordingly! -- ...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm
notes@isucs1.UUCP (01/27/85)
John Locke in his second treastise of government had quite a bit
to say about the right to self defense.
"17. And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man
into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state
of war with him, it being to be understood as a declaration of
a design upon his life; for I have reason to conclude that he
who would get me into his power without my consent would use me
as he please when he got me there, and destroy me, too, when he
had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his ab-
solute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is
against the right of my freedom, i.e., make me a slave. To be free
from such a force is the only security of my preservation; and
reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who
would take away that freedom which is a fence to it; so that he
who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a
state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would
take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state must
necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything
else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he
that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom be-
longing to those of that society or commonwealth must be supposed
to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked
on as in a state of war.
18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in
in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life any
farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power as
to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using
force where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pre-
tence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who
would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power
take away everything else. And therefore it is lawful for me to
treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war war with
me, i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly
expose himself whoever introduces a state of war and is aggressor
in it."
Now, some of you may argue that the four young men in the subway were not
using any force against Mr. Goetz this is simply untrue. They may not have
verbally threatened Mr. Goetz, but the psychological threat, the psychological
force was there. I have seen Mr. Goetz, he is a not what anyone of us would
call a powerfull man. I believe that If Mr. Goetz had allowed the situation to
mature, he would have probably been the victim of an assult with his own gun.
The four youths simply didn't get a chance to prove that their intentions were
anything but coercive or criminal. Mr. Goetz acted well within his rights
and if our system of justice does not acknowledge this then it may be time
for another constitutional convention.
We, as good and honest citezens, have made a contract with the government
we support. We have agreed to not take justice into our own hands so long
as justice be served by our government. And in return, the government has
promised to protect and to serve. The problem is that the government is
not keeping up its end of the contract; we, as a free people must therefore
be prepared to defend our rights by ourselves as Mr. Goetz has done.
God save us from ourselves.........
Michael L. Drewgeb@cadre.UUCP (02/07/85)
In article <272@isucs1.UUCP> notes@isucs1.UUCP writes: > > John Locke in his second treastise of government had quite a bit >to say about the right to self defense. > > "17. And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man > into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state > of war with him... for nobody can desire to have me in his ab- > solute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is > against the right of my freedom, i.e., make me a slave. To be free > from such a force is the only security of my preservation; and > reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who > would take away that freedom which is a fence to it; so that he > who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a > state of war with me...And therefore it is lawful for me to > treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war war with > me, i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly > expose himself whoever introduces a state of war and is aggressor > in it." > This is a beautiful statement. Not only does it apply to relations between individuals, but also to relations between individuals and governments. When LBJ decided it was time for me to go to Viet Nam, this is exactly how I felt.