Victims rights v. Defendants rights. Self-Defense v. Force Used Against the Perpetrators.

Read the article attached to this discussion:

Lasting Impact - People v. Goetz (73 N.Y. 2d 751) (1988).

Did the Prosecutors get it right at any time?

Did the Grand Juries get it right at any time?

Did the Trial Jury get it right?

Did the State Appeals Court get it right? Did they act politically correct, or in a fair and impartial manner? Did the court ignore the "rule of law", or did it take the "rule of law" into consideration?

Did the Civil Jury get it right?

What part did the media play in all of this? Were they the impartial reporter of facts and news they are supposed to be, or did they unethically pontificate and editorialize the incident to incite the people and keep them stirred up until they got their way?

Put yourself in the shoes of the 4 perpetrators of the crime on Goetz. Put yourself in the shoes of the previously two times victimized Goetz. Consider your reply to this situation from every angle and do so critically and not emotionally.

276 PART 3: The People Involved People v. Goetz (73 N.Y. 2d 751) (1988) Dubbed the \"Subway Vigilante\" by the mediz, Bernhard Goeu gained national notoriety on the afternoon of December 22, 1984, when he shot and wounded four black youths on a subway car in New York. The youths had approached Goetz, 2 white man, and told him to give them five dollars. _ In the ensuing months, the incident polarized the city. Some saw Goetz as a heroic figure rightfully deferiding himself by facing down his attackers. Others called him an overreactive racist whose actions were disproportionate and went far beyond the realm of self-defense. Goetz was cleared of all shooting charges by a grand jury shortly after the incident. They did, however, indict him on gun possession charges. But continuing high-profile media coverage and seething public conflict surrounding the case led to 2 second grand jury a few months later, by which Goetz was indicted for numerous assault and attempred murder charges. These indictments were later dismissed when two of Goetz's . victims were arrested on separate rape and robbery charges, and a third admirted in a newspaper interview that the youths had indeed decided to rob Goer:z because he looked like \"easy bait.\" - Ulrimately, Goetz was brought to trial when the New York Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of the attempted murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon charges. That trial resulted in his conviction only on the criminal possession charge. Goet's successful appeal of his sentence of six months in jail, one vear of psychiatric treatment, five years of probation, 200 hours of community service, and a fine of $5,000 resulted in the appellate court ordering resentencing to a period - of one vear in jail without probation. " One of Goetzs victims, Darrell Cabey, was left paralyzed by the wound Goetz inflicted on him. Cabey filed a civil action against Goetz in 1985. After finding that Goetz had acted recklessly and had deliberately inflicted emotional distress on Cabey, 2 jury awarded Cabey $43 million in 1996. Goetz has admitted that his cause may have been significantly damaged by his tendency to make provocative and controversial statements to the media, such as this statement quoted in a Toronto Star article on December 27, 1994 \"If you're injured, paralyzed or whatever while commining a -violent crime against me, that's not my fault.\" Events like this rarely evoke a consensus opinion in American saciety. As happened here, they typically cause wide social division, often along racial or ethnic lines or based on differences in the social {i.e., economic) status of those involved. Frequently, the opposing views both hold merit. At what point is a potential crime victim entitled to assess a threat as having risen to a level that permits assertion of his or her right of self-defense? How does one determine when a self-defense response is disproportionate to the perceived threat? (For example, is a single victim facing four attackers justified in resorting to the use of a firearm?) If a victim defends himself or herself against an attacker of another tace, does that necessarily support a charge that the victim is a racist? Are the almost automatic claims of racism in such instances valid, or are they simply the opportunistic rantings of racial agitators? Obviously, no standard template can be applied to any given criminal event. Each is as uniquely different as the characteristics of those involved. One cannot determine the propriety of any given course of action unless and until all relevant facts are considered. The very purpose of the police investigation, the district attorney's evaluation of the investigator's findings, and the grand jury process is to make that determination. But our criminal justice system sometimes falls victim to nolitical pressures and slick defense maneuvering that pervert the pursuit of justice. Attorneys have learned the expediency of hollering \"racism\" or \"pelice brutality\" or \"entrapment\" or any other emotion-evoking claim in an effort to divert scrutiny fromtheir client's conduct and causing examination of the victim or official actors in the event. ) Why? Because it works! Was Bernhard Goetz, already a two- time mugging vicrim, justified in his response to the threat he perceived from four young men on a subway car that day in 19847 One grand jury and a trial jury thought so; another jury obviously thought otherwise. : Today, more than 20 years after the incident that brought him into the public eye, Goet still faces a $43 million judgment and lives under the cloud of bankruptcy. He periodically appears on various academic or civic criminal justice panels or is interviewed for a newspaper or magazine story related 1o his case. B Note ! \"Goetz Stills Fires Up Controversy,\" Toronto Star, December 27, * 1994 Available at htp://pqash.pgarchiver.com/thestar/ access/49722342 . himl? dids=497223421:497213421&FMT= - ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Dec+27%2C+19948author=8& pub=The+Record&edition=&srarrpage=D.8&desc =Goetz+still +fires+up+controversy {accessed July 24, 2009)