Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting

Version of events must be attributed

I don't know if the fact pattern is right. See: People v. Goetz (68 N.Y.2d 96, 497 N.E.2d 41 (1986)) The court seems to conclude here the fifth shot severed Cabey's spinal cord and that it was after he offered him another shot." _________________________________________________

This article takes an omniscient point of view about events that are in dispute. The editors of this article are not in a position to say what happened, only to say what other people say happened.

Also, the line "It was testified that the final shot occurred..." needs to be more specific. Who testified? Criminal or civil trial? Mirror Vax 07:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't seem that the actual events are disputed at all. The "alternate points of view" seem to be focused on motives, not events. - Nunh-huh 08:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, consider the basic question of whether the four "asked" for money or demanded money. There's a big difference. Which was it? I believe that was in dispute. Anyway, can you please clarify that "It was testified..." bit? Mirror Vax 09:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be two ways of interpreting the same event. Initially, it was denied that the four were attempting to rob Goetz; later, one of the four was indiscreet enough to admit that it was true. And no, I can't clarify. It certainly was testified to, though, and I don't think that Goetz denied it - in fact, I rather think he verified it. - Nunh-huh 11:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

What are your sources of information? It's hard to find unbiased webbed information on this case. One (biased) article I read said that the bit you added wasn't true. Mirror Vax 21:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I wrote from personal memory of news reports of the time. Not a citable source, but not a biased one, either. For a citable and unbiased source, see CoutTV. The "bit" I added was certainly true. The only question is whether the specific statement ("You don't look so bad, have another") was disputed by Goetz: I don't think it was. -Nunh-huh 06:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

To quote Bernhard Goetz on the Opie and Anthony radio show, 6/6/2005 (XM Radio Channel 202), he said the part about "You don't look so bad, have another", in his words, "didn't happen". Of course this is after the fact and on a rather "sensationalist" -type show, but it is his contention.

Since there's been no apparent discussion on the POV, I'm removing the NPOV notice. --Golbez 20:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

= = RE: "THE INCIDENT" - The Opie and Anthony interview alludes to reports the gun was a .44 Magnum because of its volume. There is no reference to "a semi-auto 9mm" and I challange anyone to cite a news report backing that up. ALso 9mm was not the gun "de jour" it is now.

Photograph

I added a photo to the article, the one that was on every newspaper's front page.RandallFlagg 14:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yankees

"In any country of the world this kind of premediated attempted murder would carry life in prison or even capital punishment. How could he get away with less than a year?"

Did you even read the whole article?

I'm not sure why ..."speed shooting (pulling the trigger before the sights are aligned on the target)." is in the article. The author give weight to this being somehow worse than just saying "He shot as quickly as he could, given that he felt threatened by the fact he was outnumbered." Besides, in all my years of shooting I've never heard of the term "Speed Shooting" used in just this way. With a small gun used for self protection at the distance he was shooting, aiming is not a factor; you just point in the direction of the assailant and pull the trigger. Some small guns do not even have sights on them since they are somewhat unnecessary at close range.

Yankees

" With a small gun used for self protection at the distance he was shooting, aiming is not a factor; you just point in the direction of the assailant and pull the trigger. "

The above statement is incorrect. You should read a book on basic combat shooting, or try shooting a revolver quickly at several different targets in front of and behind you at distances up to 6 feet. Aiming is crucial, but the trigger is pulled prior to aiming. Note the extremely rapid speed shooting described by Goetz can only be done with a revolver and not an automatic pistol. With an automatic pistol the gun is aimed and then the trigger is pulled as you described. As for premeditation, note that Goetz rented the car after, and not prior to the shooting.

---

"Aiming is not a factor"!! God help us if this guy ever does shooting in a crowd. Most americans are idiots because they think life is like television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.209.219 (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Most anti-Americans who come onto WP attempting to promote their heavy-handed agenda are idiots because they think we care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.148.46 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Premeditation, public opinion, and some media conduct

A few sites on the internet state “a subway employee who witnessed the shooting confirmed Morgenthau's suspicion that Goetz had been looking for trouble.” This information is from a NY Daily News interview with the subway employee published prior to the 2nd grand jury. At the criminal trial just prior to testifying this subway employee blurted out “I never said those things in the paper.” The Daily News fabricated fundamental facts and statements in that article.

rumor published in the New York Times ?

"In the immediate days after the incident, rumors spread that Goetz was threatened with sharpened screwdrivers. This rumor was published as fact in several newspapers, including the New York Times."

Is this statement accurate? I could not find the Times article stating this, so I'm not sure. Note Goetz turned himself in 9 days after the incident. The previous statement: "Goetz did not say he was threatened with a "sharpened screwdriver", although this was reported in some media." might be more accurate. Can someone clarify this?

Media manipulation, public misinformation, and interesting facts

The "Yankee are very weird" post is a perfect illustration of public misinformation on the 1984 subway shooting. A reporter who covered this case 20 years ago informed me that the media manipulation by an unethical prosecutor’s office, the NY Daily News, and the NY Times was the worst he had ever seen. The extremely biased partial release of evidence by the prosecutor’s office (Goetz’s confession of shooting Cabey twice) should have resulted in the prosecutor being censured or disbarred. The first grand jury exonerated Goetz. Months later a second grand jury was opened after Goetz: (1) stated that New York government was “incompetant, inept, and corrupt” (2) advocated a large increase in in the number of civilian pistol carry permits. The prosecutor’s office and the highest levels of the New York courts were aware that Cabey was shot once, but encouraged the racially divisive view that Goetz was looking for trouble, that a helpless Cabey was shot twice, and that the shooting was racially motivated. Proof that the authorities knew Cabey was shot once is shown in the decision People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96 (N.Y. 1986) where it is stated Cabey is shot once (but is still slanted in the worst possible scenerio against Goetz as the last shot). The public mindset that Cabey was shot twice was so strong at the time that Goetz’s attorneys assumed this was a mistake by the Court of Appeals, and the media also assumed this, and Cabey being shot once in the left side was not reported.

The NY media considered Rev. Sharpton dishonest and ignored him prior to1985, but the NY Daily News, the NY Times, and NYC TV channel 7 put Rev. Al Sharpton on the map in order to get a “legitimate” black leader’s commentary against Goetz. This backfired as Al Sharpton was expected to disappear after the Goetz case, but he did not, and Sharpton became a big name in NY politics. This has actually improved the cesspool of NY politics greatly: previous to Al Sharpton unethical white politicians would shamelessly exploit the race card, now Al Sharpton has forcefully displaced them, but he has less overall credibility.

At the criminal trial after the lead prosecution witness on the train testified and was totally disredited (Sally Smithern, a prostitute in the adjacent car !), the prosecutor was asked by the defense team why he was in effect throwing the truth seeking process out the window. DA Waples replied “My job is to get convictions.” All but two other witnesses at the criminal trial supported Goetz: one at the other end of the car who reported he saw and heard Goetz shoot Cabey in the stomach after the initial shooting; and James Ramseur, a convicted rapist who staged his own kidnapping in an attempt to vilify Goetz. All other witnesses said they could not count the shots, but that all the shots occured in the suprisingly brief time of about one second. It might be noted that Goetz, as part of an unsuccesful pistol carry permit application, had significant combat shooting training at a pistol range a few blocks from where he lived.

In the discussion by a contributor above it was stated “you just point in the direction of the assailant and pull the trigger." This is incorrect and would probably result in innocent bystanders being shot. As Goetz stated “A shooting like this requires total concentration. After the first shot, you totally forget the first shot and concentrate only on the second shot. The second shot is all that exists. After the second shot you totally forget it and concentrate only on the third shot. Etc.” This explains why Goetz, who was cooperating with New Hampshire law enforcement, was unable to give exact details of where the shots were fired other than the first shot in Canty’s chest and the last shot “in Cabey’s stomach.” (It could be difficult for people who have not been in close combat to understand this.) The exact detailed description of the shooting given in the Wikipedia article was only determined about a week prior to and during the criminal trial by Slotnick's team and Goetz, who were given the Brady evidence at that time.

70.198.45.81Whoever wrote the above commentary seems to have a very thorough grasp of the facts of the case. I would urge you to include a segment in the article fully explaining the true facts of the case relating to the "here have another" portion of the incident. 1) That Cabey was hit only once (many people never bothered to follow the trial phase, they just remember the initial news.) 2) Whether the rush and trauma of the incident blocked Goetz's memory of the "have another" trigger pull. 3) Did Goetz know, or claim to know, if there was a bullet in the gun for that "have another" trigger pull? 4) That Goetz purportedly pulled the trigger the second time because, as retold in media interviews long after the incident, he thought Cabey might have still been able to attack him at that point; that Goetz didn't know how badly Cabey was actually injured. 5) That Goetz and his lawyer didn't know Caey sustained only 1 shot until 18 months after the shooting when the medical and ballistic evidence was formally discovered by the defense team. 09:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)~

Explanation for 70.198.45.81

The Cabey shot(s) are explained in good detail, as are all the shots, read it closely, what fuller detail could you want? Maybe this will help: Note during the shooting Goetz was forgeting every shot and concentrating on the next shot. He had visual and audio distortion after the first shot, claimed not to hear or feel the kick of the gun after the first shot, lost count after the second shot ("speed and the count ...... initially 4 vertical bars"), forgot about the third shot, didn't know the gun was empty on the "6th shot", and didn't regain normal vision and hearing until seeing the 2 women after the shooting. A victim under an adrenaline rush is not criminally responsible (unless you're a New York liberal!). Goetz tried to shoot Cabey again because Cabey was MOVING while sitting on the subway seat (the other three muggers were lying still on the subway floor). "You don't look so bad, here's another" was a thought pattern in Goetz's mind; a person is incapable of speach while in the combat mode. Keeping track of only 5 bullets and four targets while shooting might sound easy, but is not. You basically can't count targets AND bullets if you are completely focusing on the targets, which is what must be done for responsible shooting. (Note that no innocent bystanders were injured even though one of the woman was located BETWEEN Canty and Allen.) And even though the women denied being shot, Goetz didn't know for sure that the two women weren't shot until he heard it on the radio while driving to New England. Adding all these details to the article might just confuse the average reader and probably doesn't hold much interest except for a few experts. Goetz, his lawyer, and everyone else didn't know Cabey was shot once until the criminal trial, how do you want this explained further? Maybe it should be explained further, it was an OUTRAGEOUS situation. Goetz's conduct is explained in minute detail and shouldn't need further explanation, but the prosecutor's conduct does. There should probably be some more stuff about the 2 grand juries, for the law students. Also the 2 federal civil rights investigations. Maybe Ramseur's phony kidnapping or the plutonium water scare should be added to the article - it might be interesting to many.

NPOV

This is a rather pro-Goetz article, in my opinion - especially the section dedicated to the crimes committed after the trial (which has nothing to do with the night Goetz shot four men), not to mention statements like "completely disproven". If one person out of four people admits to a crime, that is hardly "complete". Also, the fifth young man being paralyzed as a "consequence" of Goetz's crime? Desperately needs a rewrite. PennyGWoods 07:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) PS: For the record, I'm fairly sure I didn't delete anything, I just tagged it.

• I agree that the section mentioning subsequent crimes committed by 3 of the 4 young men is of questionable relevance in this article (I also question the veracity, because I attended a lecture about this case, where it was mentioned that only 1 of the 4 committed subsequent crimes). Either way, it does more damage to the neutrality of the article than the potential benefit it might give to readers. Moroveus 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Moroveus

it is hardly questionable, because it proves a point that many refined people cannot understand. If a strange white man walks up to a white man on the subway and starts asking personal questions, well that is pretty damn weird if it happens to you. I'd think the guy was insane or a potential criminal, end of story (i rode the subway for over 10 years, so I know how to behave on it, though thankfully I have driven everywhere for the past 20). If 4 white guys did the same thing I would know for sure that I was in trouble. I mean for sure. Now what would you do if 4 black guys did the same thing? (assuming that you are white like me. Or if 4 asians, or four Muslims). Obviously, you'd start shooting. Goetz did the right thing, to any normal male. Now the point of my point: subsequent crimes is after the fact evidence that these boys were evil little jackasses, proof not to Goetz or to me or to the cops, but proof to the whiney liberal. Seminumerical 07:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Seminumerical, really how does for asians or four blacks make them more threatning than for whites. And how does that give you more reasons to starts firing. Without knowing much about the case I think this is Pro Goetz article, painting him in a very favourable light. Shabda 06:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Moroveus, PennyGWoods, 68.175.58.4: issues edited + the NPOV

Moroveus and 68.175.58.4 had about a dozen issues on bias and writing which were resolved and can be found in the April 2006 discussion history. (taken down by consent, anyone can re-post) Those sections included the folowing discussion about the present NPOV:

Moroveus: I’m concerned about your neutrality and that the filed NPOV is bogus. Again, just to clear the water, do you have any relationship to PennyGWoods? Please respond to this posting - if not I’m going to ask Wikipedia to have you & PennyGWoods blocked. - 68.175.58.4

No relation to Penny, and I didn't flag the article as NPOV. - Moroveus

Block me. See if I care. I just registered, and for the record? I AM THE ONE WHO TAGGED IT AS NPOV. I wasn't aware that people can be blocked for pointing out poor, slanted writing. PennyGWoods 07:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, was the “young man paralyzed as a consequence of Goetz's crime” or was the young man paralyzed as a consequence of his own crime? - 68.175.58.4

Who shot him again again? Yeah, just checking. PennyGWoods 07:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather pro-Goetz article, in my opinion - especially the section dedicated to the crimes committed after the trial (which has nothing to do with the night Goetz shot four men), not to mention statements like "completely disproven". If one person out of four people admits to a crime, that is hardly "complete". Also, the fifth young man being paralyzed as a "consequence" of Goetz's crime? Desperately needs a rewrite. PennyGWoods 07:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) PS: For the record, I'm fairly sure I didn't delete anything, I just tagged it.

After discussion and final April 17, 2006 edits:

I would support the article as neutral at this point. - Moroveus 19:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Following are ALL the statements up to now by the NPOV author:

"This is a rather pro-Goetz article, in my opinion - especially the section dedicated to the crimes committed after the trial (which has nothing to do with the night Goetz shot four men), not to mention statements like "completely disproven". If one person out of four people admits to a crime, that is hardly "complete". Also, the fifth young man being paralyzed as a "consequence" of Goetz's crime? Desperately needs a rewrite. PennyGWoods 07:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) PS: For the record, I'm fairly sure I didn't delete anything, I just tagged it."

"Who shot him (Cabey) again again? Yeah, just checking. PennyGWoods 07:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"

"Block me. See if I care. I just registered, and for the record? I AM THE ONE WHO TAGGED IT AS NPOV. I wasn't aware that people can be blocked for pointing out poor, slanted writing. PennyGWoods 07:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"

---

The NPOV author shows by the above statements that she is biased, careless, and ignorant about the facts, as illustrated in her few phrases “Goetz’s crime”, “the NIGHT Goetz shot”, and “Who shot him again again”.

Other than the above statements, PennyGWoods gives no justification for the NPOV. This is an abuse of the NPOV process and the NPOV should be removed. - 68.175.58.4

You're hilarious. If I wanted to slant the article, I'd edit it. I haven't touched it. I'm just questioning the crappy writing. If it happens to be YOUR crappy writing, tough. PennyGWoods 05:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Its not my crappy writing. The section you object to with “completely” was added by a new contributor roughly a month ago (note I deleted “completely”). This article was written mainly by about half a dozen contributors over a long period of time. When I saw the addition I thought both “completely” and “disproven” were a poor use of logic and words, and the whole sentence should be changed, deleted, or added to, since there are more and better arguements to indicate a robbery was taking place.There are also other areas in the article that could be improved in my opinion. The goal of this article is to be as informative and accurate as possible, not as a platform for any biased viewpoint. If you are “just questioning the crappy writing” on this long article you should give specific examples. Why don’t you present some suggested improvements here? Even better, can you suggest a source with better writing or a source that is more informative or accurate? It looks like Moroveus took down the sentence you objected to. Can the NPOV come down now? And we should probably take down most of the banter we did recently, theres a record of it anyway. Maybe we should briefly say edits, objections, NPOV, etc, issues resolved. - 68.175.58.4

• • I've already pointed out some of the things I think make it NPOV. Not only is it very, VERY pro-Goetz, but things like "Racial tensions in New York City have also dramatically declined since 1984" are not only not cited, but aren't even relevant to this article. So what, some dude shot up four black guys and everybody got so scared that they started to get along? Probably not. Since the writer obviously went out of his way to point out that the muggers went on to commmit other crimes, where are the citations pointing to that (and again, what does that have to do with the muggers being shot four times?). I can see where it's relevant, but the way it's presented, it reads (IMO) like "they were thugs anyway, look what they did!" I also notice that the author only lightly touched on the public reactions, using weasely words like "some people" and "others". Goetz wasn't just named a vigilante by the tabloids, he was named a subway vigilante by damn near every media of press! Heck, not only does the NPOV need to stay, but it needs a "doesn't cite sources" tag as well! 68.175.58.4 seems to be insulted that anyone would question his brilliant opus (apparently, shooting four people isn't even a crime, and 68.175.58.4 takes umbrage to anyone suggesting it), but the fact is that it's a very poorly written piece of work that wouldn't cut it if it weren't on Wiki. And as it stands, it SHOULDN'T be here. PennyGWoods 00:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is getting to be a hassle. Note there are many authors of this article, just check the history. I wrote very little of the present article - I wrote 8 lines of the present INCIDENT section and 1 line of the COURT CASES section!

Are you aware that you have a rather obvious trait of using judgemental (slanted?) language, something you fault others on? Look at your own phrases: “Goetz’s crime”, “apparently, shooting four people isn't even a crime”, and “the muggers went on to commit “. That language concludes: 1. That Goetz’s shooting was criminal. 2. That the four who were shot were committing a mugging.

The article is not “very, VERY pro-Goetz”, and neither is it pro-Canty, Allen, Cabey, and Ramseur. The article is LOADED with relevant facts that you apparently don’t like and feel shouldn’t be printed. You say “the writer obviously went out of his way to point out that the muggers went on to commmit other crimes” and it reads (IMO) like "they were thugs anyway, look what they did!" Thats not the case. The reason violent crimes are considered relevant is because some people alledge a mugging was not taking place, and previous and later violent crimes discredit that point of view. Not everybody is like you and concedes a mugging was taking place. BTW, I’m not thrilled with the word “collared” and a few other phrases in the article, although I understand the point of view.

"Racial tensions in New York City have also dramatically declined since 1984" can be edited out of the article as far as I’m concerned. Many statements have been added and deleted to the article over a few years, and I agree with you that its not particularly relavent. My main concern is the accuracy of the INCIDENT section anyway, and I’m always open to suggestions on improving it. The main reason I got dragged into addressing this NPOV is because I objected to Moroveus's deletion of 1.6 seconds, I mistakingly thought you and he were acting together, and would rather someone else address your NPOV after this. Anyway, to continue.........

Because Goetz was labeled the “Subway Vigilante” by the NY Post and some media does not actually make him a vigilante. If you think so you can/should add a statement to the article to the effect that Goetz was a vigilante and even cite the Post or other media. See if it holds up.

This is the best comprehensive and most informative article on the subject I know of, but if you know of anything better, PLEASE post it here so others can evaluate it. (I bet you don’t know of anything better; its a wasteland out there.) In an article this length every fact cannot be cited, but just about every statement printed has been contested and then verified (attributed/cited/defended) by the different writers at one time or another. There are dozens of accurate under-reported facts in this article, and you’ve contested no reported facts! Instead you want the whole article deleted, which smacks of left-wing censorship. If there are any other facts or claimed facts in the article you contest or object to, please state so here and it will be addressed.

I (and others) can only effectively address specific objections; how can anyone address your general objections like “pro-Goetz”, “slanted”, “biased”, and “poorly written” when you are not more specific? And just repeating them doesn’t make them valid.

You apparently want the whole article deleted; why not start by suggesting a few sentences? There’s always room for improvement.

If you want as a start I’d be happy to take down "Racial tensions in New York City have also dramatically declined since 1984" since its apparently important to you, but it might be somewhat nervy on my part since I didn’t write it or understand it, don’t understand the reason for it, and have seen it several times in the media. What reason should I give? Not relevant? That sounds kind of weak right this instant, I'm sleepy and maybe should give it more thought. I'd really rather stick to the incident section. But whatever, the person who wrote it or others can defend it. - 68.175.58.4

• You are a funny, funny little poster. Please don't ever stop. I love the beat you're making when you bang your rattle up against the crib.

If I wanted a slanted article...still with me?...I'D EDIT IT. I haven't touched it. It's not my fault that you can't keep your opinions out of your "writing". As long as you do, I'll challenge it. Don't like it? Tough. I never said I wanted the article deleted, either. You should learn to read better, as well as write. Your comprehension skills aren't anything to write home about, either.

And I hate to break it to you, but...as "slanted" and "biased" as you think my opinion is, as long as it's NOWHERE IN THE ACTUAL ARTICLE, I'm more than entitled to have my opinion. Welcome to the real world, Slick. PennyGWoods 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• You say: “it's not my fault that you can't keep your opinions out of your "writing". As long as you do, I'll challenge it. “

Well, that’s the point. You don’t understand where I’m coming from. A lot of people including me welcome suggestions. I have to justify my writing, everyone else has to justify their writing, and you have to justify your NPOV.

Instead of derision, why don’t you get more specific? What wording or sentences would you like changed? What paragraphs should be added to or modified or deleted? You have had only 2 specific objections (so far):

1. "completely disproven" As per your suggestion I deleted “completely”. It was a dumb word, but I didn’t write it. Maybe the whole sentence should be deleted. I also am uncomfortable with "disproven", and after this post I'll change it to "discredited". I think you were right on this one, its better now, nobody should object, but that you are blowing it out of proportion. This sloppy statement was only added recently (March 6, 2006) by a new unknown author who also added many silly (I think) wikifications and the "Cabey became permanently paralyzed" language that Moroveus objected to. Those author's "errors" are not enough to conclude the article is generally biased.

2. You object to: "Racial tensions in New York City have also dramatically declined since 1984" are not only not cited, but aren't even relevant to this article. “ I think your objection sounds correct. I’m not sure if its right to delete it, but I’ll delete it if you withdraw your NPOV. I don't think this statement shows bias, but I also don't know if its relavent or even correct. I'm uncomfortable about deleting this sentence and wish someone else would make a decision on this and justify it.

3. My opinions for changes: I think "Although he was released on parole, he subsequently violated parole and the court reincarcerated him in November 2005." is irrelevant and should be deleted. What do you think about deleting this? It might be a good place to start.

I think Ramseur's phony kidnapping (2 Italian hit men in a green Cadilac ..... hired by Goetz) is relevant (his credibility), interesting, and funny, and could or should be added to this article since he was a "champagne witness", but I don't really care if its added or not. Others can add it if they want and we could judge it then.

I also think some of the rest of the article is a little creepy and most of the EVENTS SINCE THE TRIAL SECTION is irrelevant and could be deleted, but some might find it interesting, I don't know. And I think the whole article maybe should be retitled: "1984 New York City subway shooting", since this is what the article is actually about, but this might go over like a lead balloon with the original author. A lot of the personal stuff about Goetz would be irrelevant then and could be deleted. I wonder what the original author thinks about this. - 68.175.58.4

I also think the following at the beginning of the article should be deleted: “They later admitted to carrying flathead screwdrivers, which they claimed were intended to be used for burglarizing video game machines.”. At the time half the adult males in NYC carried some form of weapon, which says something about the place. And Its stated later.

Anyway, is there anything else in the article you think should be changed? I think I'm going to delete the items I suggested above soon unless I hear otherwise from you or someone else. Note if items 1 and 2 are addressed your NPOV is satisfied by Wiki rules, and anyone can remove it. And I don't think item 2 even has to be removed: very few people would consider it a biased statement, but it could be cited - 68.175.58.4

• Update: I just deleted: “They later admitted to carrying flathead screwdrivers, which they claimed were intended to be used for burglarizing video game machines.” (printed later anyway) and "Although he was released on parole, he subsequently violated parole and the court reincarcerated him in November 2005.". I don't think anyone will object. I also changed it so their ages are listed one time, no need to list them twice. I'm not ready yet to delete: "Racial tensions in New York City have also dramatically declined since 1984". It seems to make sense in the section. I wish others would weigh in on this. It seems like a touchy subject. - 68.175.58.4

• • Instead of derision, why don’t you get more specific? What wording or sentences would you like changed? What paragraphs should be added to or modified or deleted? You have had only 2 specific objections (so far):

My goodness, must everything be fingerspelled out for you? I've listed those two because I felt those two were the major reasons that made the article look pro-Goetz. I'm not arguing about the facts, just the way they'r eeing presented.

I'm not ready yet to delete: "Racial tensions in New York City have also dramatically declined since 1984". It seems to make sense in the section. I wish others would weigh in on this. It seems like a touchy subject.

It's not a "touchy subject". It's just flat-out untrue. What do you think Do the Right Thing was about, anyway - a fairy tale? But if you can prove that racial tensions have even SLIGHTLY declined - even in 1984 alone - I'll be very impressed. What in the world are you basing this statement on? PennyGWoods 15:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't write that statement (Racial tensions in New......), or anything in that section! I don't know if its true or not, it just seems to have some validity, but I can't justify that statement and am happy to take it down, and will in a few minutes. Then your present NPOV is satisfied. If the author wants to put it up the "Racial tensions in New York....." statement again he will have to justify it...... if its reposted you can file a new NPOV, and you and the author can dispute it. I'll be removing your NPOV in 24 hours as satisfied. If you have other objections to the article instead of filing a new NPOV you might try raising them here on the discussion page first , this page is regularly monitored. Also with a little legwork in the history section you can find out who wrote every sentence. - 68.175.58.4

• • What's so bad about filing an NPOV? Geez, you people act like I shot your dog.

There's still a lot of work to be done in the section discussing background and what happened after the fact, starting with the "serious crimes" quip...and boy, some citations would be nice. I'm also curious to know more about the first mugging Goetz went though - the one the original authors barely mentioned (must've been white men who mugged him). It's still poorly written, structure-wise. But other than that? No complaints. PennyGWoods 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• This section is so long - is it OK if I replace this section with a summary saying: "A NPOV was filed (date) challenging statements of fact about proof of an attempted robbery and race relations in New York City. After discussion the two statements were deleted and the NPOV removed." There will be record in the history section anyway. You could repost anything you want. Also, I agree the background section is a little strident, but I didn't write it. - 68.175.58.4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.58.4 (talk • contribs) 23:35 & 23:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't delete material from talk pages without copying the deleted material, with its context, to an archive sub-page, and linking the talk page in question to that archive. The making of this suggestion means someone needs to check the history since for such deletions, and

This talk page must be presumed to be a

False Record

until a registered editor investigates the history since Apr. 24, and certifies deletion has not occurred, or remedies any deletions found. (After that point, the oversizing and coloring i use on the words "false record" above may be removed, without falsifying the intent of my signed edit or doing other harm.)

This suggestion of deletion was especially egregious in view of

the heated debate on this talk page, and

a low-grade forgery on the page, specifically the imposition, visible only via viewing the history, of one editor's PoV onto the words of another.

--Jerzy•t 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The statement "Racial tensions in New York City have also dramatically declined since 1984" is based on facts. Racial tensions = racially-motivated crimes and general sociological problems between races. The racial tensions in New York City really started to become apparent during the civil rights movement in the 1960s (e.g. protests at Columbia University) and then started to decline in the 1990s. To deny or have a problem with this statement is bizarre to me. Go read the newpapers from the 1980's and see all the famous cases (e.g. Howard Beach) in addition to Bernie Goetz. There were many high profile cases (as well as low profile cases) of racially-motivated crimes in NYC between various racial/ethnic groups. If I were given the choice to be black in a white neighborhood or white in a black neighborhood in 1984 vs. 2007, it's a no-brainer (2007). Can anyone imagine saying "I wish the race relations in NYC were like they were back in 1984"? "I wish there were more opportunities for African Americans like back in 1984"—ludicrous. Perhaps the wording could be better, but it doesn't in any way imply that the Goetz incident helped matters, nor does it state that we have acheived racial equality nor does it deny that racism still exists (on both sides). The Goetz incident was one of many during a troubled time in NYC, but things have improved. — Repliedthemockturtle 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• "especially the section dedicated to the crimes committed after the trial (which has nothing to do with the night Goetz shot four men)". Why is this irrelevant? This is not a court trial where events before and after a crime are to be stricken. These four men obviously had a tremendous impact on the life of B. Goetz, the topic of this article so it seems relevant to me. If a famous person gets divorced, it would be irrelevant to mention anything about the spouse in a bio of said person? The facts are what they are. Present the facts. — Repliedthemockturtle 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Whew! Comment: Prior to Wikipedia people like PennyGWoods mostly dominated the media portrayal of this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.168.199.137 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Reaction Amongst The Legal Community

This case has come under a great deal of scrutiny in the legal community. New York's self-defense statute is Common Law self-defense codified. As such, New York's self-defense statute requires that the resisting or defending force used should only be enough to protect oneself and that self-defense is inapplicable when the threat or peril has ended. Goetz displayed his weapon and the four youths dispersed. At that time, the threat of harm or robbery was over. If that was all that had happened, then Goetz's act self-defense would have been undisputed. Instead, Goetz shot all four in the back while they were running away. This might have also been an acceptable application of self-defense, but it was certainly approaching the thresh hold of murder. Goetz final act of is what comes under the most scrutiny. Goetz looked at all four youths and made sure they he had shot them. When Goetz saw Cabey slumped in a seat, he decided that Cabey was not hurt enough and fired another round into his stomach, which severed Cabey's spinal cord. It is almost indisputable that after shooting all four that the threat of harm had passed and thus self-defense should not have been applicable. This is a perfect example of jury nullification, where the jury despite knowing the law, chooses to ignore it. (Originally published in main article April 19, 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.147.248.194 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Antonio3 - Reaction Amongst The Legal Community is full of nonsense

_ _ "Goetz displayed his weapon and the four youths dispersed. At that time, the threat of harm or robbery was over. "

This is baloney, Goetz started shooting with no warning; they were right on top of him. Quote from Canty in a police report: "I could have touched his face".

- - Not to mention: brandishing a firearm alone without firing could have resulted in Goetz being rushed and overpowered by the young men. Shooting was clearly a necessity to preserve Goetz's life and limb.

_ _ "jury nullification"

? The jury knew some facts, you obviosly don't, so your claim of jury nullification is unwarranted at this point. Don't you know Cabey was shot once (in the left side)? That was settled a long time ago. Your edited version has 6 shots fired!

_ _ What "Legal Community" do you represent? _ _ Try to make the Harvard Ogletree talk/discussion on April 24th, 3:00 PM, Langdell South Classroom. It will be an open forum and all points of view will be represented. The following 4 will be speaking: Waples & Kuby vs. Slotnick & Baker. Maybe it will be televised. Then you could legitimately start a "Some Reaction Amongst The Legal Community" section, and it could be a good beginning. Unfortunately it will only be 90 minutes, and there should probably be more time for reasonable audience questions.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.243.85 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

At 19:20, 30 July 2006, 207.237.124.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) corrupted the record on this page by a low-grade forgery, converting the clause "The jury knew the facts" to "The jury knew some facts".

(I am Moroveus, and i says:) The "Reaction Amongst the Legal Community" section has multiple errors and should not be reinserted.

• The fact pattern explaining the shooting is both inaccurate (They dispersed and then he shot them all in the back?) and biased.
• New York's self defense statute at the time was not a codified version of the common law self defense doctrine. There are some similarities (the reasonableness standard is effectively the same), but the authorization of force is more liberal in the statute than in the common law.
• Reaction within the legal community is hardly uniform, but the section presents it as if it is. It's true that this case is still disputed, but it's not a one-sided dispute. A lot of criminal law text books use this case because there is such room for debate.
• The mention of jury nullification is presented as fact. An argument could be made that the jury disregarded the law, but if the argument is there...make it. It's not appropriate to simply state it as if it undisputable.

Moroveus 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC) The placement of the signature at top (misleading bcz it is so contrary to WP conventions, and bcz the previous contrib was unsigned) has been remedied by me, along with the potentially confusing third-person reference by the author to themself.--Jerzy•t 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Added Deleted 'Cleanup' Notice

Misplaced section moved from head to foot of talk page, and formatting corrected.--Jerzy•t 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While I think there's a lot of good stuff here, it really needs to be cleaned up. For example, the article has " (For more clarification see "Explanation for 70.198.45.81" in the Discussion section)" in 'The Incident' which just seems unacceptable. Likewise, I'm not convinced 'The Incident' needs to go as in-depth as it does. Perhaps just a link to a more complete account is all that's needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.89.6 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your first point but not the second. "The incident" is a famous (notorious?) chapter in U.S. history, particularly in the areas of urban crime and race relations, and I think it is worthy of a Wikipedia account.
Branden 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Baloney. This article is mainly for law students and also to correct public misinformation about the case, and is the authoritative reference article on this case. 'The Incident' is the most important section in this article, with accuracy of facts paramount, but if you think any information should be deleted, added, or moved why not make a specific suggestion? Can you suggest a general strategy to make the Incident section and other sections flow better? Maybe there should be a separate article for law students and the public - if you think this article goes into too much depth why don't you write a separate article for the public? There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there! The "Explanation for 70.198.45.81" is important for legal analysis because it explains why Goetz believed he shot Cabey twice. It's included in the Discussion section only because it's tangental to an already cluttered article, and maybe even other material in the Incident section could be moved to the Discussion section. Anyone who wants to add a section about race relations should read 'PennyGWoods' in this section first (and the associated history).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.124.118 (talk • contribs) (01:18, 25 -- 19:20, 30 July 2006) (UTC)

Relevance and Prejudice

Anonymous User:150.108.235.20 deleted the word "black" as a descriptive adjective for the four men who menaced Bernhard Goetz. That user asserted that the inclusion of such an adjective was "irrelevant and prejudicial." In the same vein, I submit that the use of adjectives that disclose age and gender are also irrelevant and prejudicial. Therefore, I have removed the words "young" and "men" in the sentence that refers to the subway incident. Only by their names would a reader be able to prejudicially infer that they were not, for example, elderly, Asian women or middle-aged, Caucasian hermaphrodites.Lestrade 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

On further consideration,it appears that the mention of the names of the four individuals (Barry Allen, Troy Canty, James Ramseur, and Darrell Cabey) might be irrelevant and prejudicial. Therefore, I suggest that they be replaced with the letters "A, B, C, and D." If no one objects, I will make the change.Lestrade 02:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

• Both these edits have been reverted. Please see WP:POINT. exolon 05:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

- - The names of the perpetrators are fact and public record. Their names are necessary for citation research purposes on an ongoing basis. How are their names irrelevant? Make your case, until then, let's report names and facts.

"Vegetarian Animals"

The introductory paragraph concludes with the following statement, "His other interests include magnetic levitation, plasma nuclear fusion, and vegetarian animals."

There is no such thing as a vegetarian animal. A vegetarian is a human being who chooses not to eat meat for reasons of personal belief or conviction (hence, the origin of the term: vegetable + arian = vegetarian). An animal that eats only plants is herbivorous. Darentig 13:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The vegetarian distictions are nitpicking - animals are often referred to as either carnivorous or vegetarian, and I have had "vegetarian" pets that would occasionally eat ice cream or a hard boiled egg, but would still considered "vegetarian" by the Webster dictionary definition. - Pookie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.148.181.19 (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Distinguishing herbivorous animals as such, and refusing to ascribe to them human attributes of which they are incapable, is not nitpicking, it is using the English language correctly. It may be true that people commonly and erroneously refer to herbivorous animals as vegetarian animals, but that does not make the incorrect usage of the word correct, and it does not mean that it is acceptable for an encyclopedia to do so. I do not know off-hand what the Webster's definition of the word is (and I doubt that you do) but the Oxford American says:

vegetarian |ˌvejiˈte(ə)rēən|

noun

a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, esp. for moral, religious, or health reasons.

adjective

of or relating to the exclusion of meat or other animal products from the diet : a vegetarian restaurant.

DERIVATIVES vegetarianism |-ˌnizəm| noun

ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: formed irregularly from vegetable + -arian .

If an animal can now be properly referred to as vegetarian, then we might also describe it with terms such as Hindu, Republican, or stoic.

As for "ice cream or a hard boiled egg," that is precisely the point: animals eat what they eat, and are incapable of vegetarianism. Darentig 12:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The topic above is nitpicking and could be deleted with no loss. If Darentig doesn't know the Webster definition (this is America) of vegetarianism he can easily look it up. And its also inappropriate for people to "correct" this article with "English" spelling.

death wish?

seems similiar to Death Wish movies starting Charles Bronson.

i think that deserves mention in the article as part of the social phenomena surrounding this case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.135.171 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Comparisons to the movie "Death Wish" were made a number of times in the media after the incident, but were dismissed as inaccurate; ie. - Goetz was not "hunting". - Pookie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.148.181.19 (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Race

So, Goetz is white and the others African American? This needs to be noted in the article, not to make a racist or anti-racist point through the article, but for clarity and because it was obviously raised in the public debates regarding this event. I assume racial indicators were removed at some point so as to not skew the article, but it still contains sentences such as this, which now make no sense in the article:

"Some wondered whether the trial result would have been different if the participants' races were reversed. In contrast, Time Magazine correspondent Otto Friedrich pointed out the case of Austin Weeks, a 29 year old African American man who shot a white teenager, yet a New York City grand jury refused to indict Weeks for that shooting."

I was reading through the article, then hit this part, and had to go back to see if I missed what the races were. It also mentions CORE getting involved, and Public Enemy referring to this case in selecting the name for the band, points that need context to make sense. I know race is tricky to present in a non-contentious way, and it appears that it's not the predominant issue here, but it's crucial to the context. I don't live in the US, but I think I'd have heard if race became irrelevant to law, order, and criminal justice in urban America. Thanks, Bobanny 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Race is relevant to a discussion of the case as elements of the media and certain political figures portrayed race as a factor in the incident. It's a part of the historical context of the incident. Wish I had some good citations for you, I dont.

Was race a factor in the incident or was the race card played? A section on media coverage and media manipulation could be added.

• Here are some informative links: Allegations of racism after the first grand jury and Allegations of racism after the criminal trial. Will look for later references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.187.26 (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC) I've looked at over a hundred articles on race in this case and can't find a single good article. Are Americans as stupid as they say? With all the statements about race and this case, can't anybody write a good article? If somebody finds something rational please post it here so a Race section can be added to the article, or just add it to the article.

Someone deleted that the civil trial jury was all minority, which was one of things added as a result of Bobanny above. I added it again although its not PC.

I just saw the national figures on white/black , black/white crime. 90% is black on white, 10% white on black. If a white shoots 4 blacks in the process of committing a mugging, why is the white considered racially motivated?

Just the nature of the country. If a black man shoots a white criminal in self defense, the vast majority of white people say good job, a criminal was shot. On the other hand, white people are the majority of the population in the U.S in terms of number and economical and political clout so they have less to lose in regards to how they're viewed by others as a subsect of U.S. society. If a white man shoots a black criminal for any reason, for some reason a vocal section of black society in America deifies the criminal as the real victim. The reasons are incredibly complex. Years of oppression vs their ancestors and black society as a whole in the country, yet does that justify the actions of individuals not directly effected by it? Fun facts like Per capita blacks, especially black males, are signifigantly more likely to be violent criminals. Yet on the opposite side more fun facts such as blacks, especially black males, are signifigantly more likely to grow up poor and in less then ideal conditions. Where does the blame start, they obviously fail society, but at somepoint it obviously failed them, where does it end, what responses are acceptable to it, is a massively complex debate that has several pages dedicated to it on wikipedia, and linking to those is a far wiser course then trying to fit it all in this article and far more then I could explain to you here. The U.S. is a racial melting pot unlike any other in the world, and while that sometimes is a blessing, it is also sometimes a curse. U.S. law sometimes takes the stance it should be blind to race, and sometimes take the stance (see hate crime legislation) that race is all that matters. If their is a more complex issue that is criss crossed with more information, disinformation, political correctness, and need for political incorrectness, I cannot imagine it. Trust me, even if you're from a foreign country, you probably understand the totality of it about as well as those of us from the U.S. ever will. At the core it's probably important that the victim not be made into the criminal, and the criminals be treated as such, but it's also important that if something is predisposing people to be criminals it be dealt with, and sometimes the victims DO become the criminal if they overreact past a point. So you end up with simple principals that run head first into the real world and views and opinions end up all over the place. THAT my friend, is why race matters here and why just the fact he is white shooting four black men makes race an issue and means it could have definetly effected his motivations (or depending on your view, why the fact race should not matter here, is why race matters here). Like it or not, studies have shown even blacks are more nervous when approached by strange blacks then strange whites (remember, the vast majority of violent crime by blacks is against black). So when everyone knows one group is more likely to be violent criminals, specifically here, the question arises if it had been four white thugs that accosted Goetz, would he have been so quick to shoot? Or would he have played the odds they were less likely to take their demands further and hold out? Or simply show them the gun to convince them to back off? And no matter what he did was he at fault, or society at fault, for how race could have effected his decision? IF he had only shot the criminals because they were BLACK criminals, then race did matter. IF he shot them as he would have shot a group of white criminals, race doesn't matter. Yet only in this own mind can the answer to that be found, but arguing it is key if you're the legal side against him. If he shot them because they were black, and not just because they were criminals, HE is a criminal and a racist. IF he shot them because they were criminals, then especially in NY at that time, he's arguably a hero. Thought this was all long? Try reading the PILES of material on this for law or pre-law application. Scary thing is I picked up all this from another groups speech on their project, I'm not even one of the poor bastards that had to look into this case and the nightmarish complexity of the various factors in it and the public and legal perception of it.

Whoever wrote the long paragraph above seems to have studied the issue of race in this case in great detail. If after all that ambivalent analysis the best conclusion they have is “the fact he is white shooting four black men makes race an issue”, it indicates race as an issue is off the mark and they have been misled in the past by misinformation. I suggest they reset their breakers by reading the Wiki article closely and to use it as an authoritative starting point, and then to read the sources they previously used. If or when they realize how they were misled in the past, they probably will have a different point of view. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People_v._Goetz

• Just finished googling a number of articles on this case about race. Nobody uses as a reference or even mentions the 2 federal civil rights investigations into the shootings. You would think these investigations would have some standing, at least in the academic community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.168.199.137 (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Al Sharpton

Can someone explain exactly how this case made Al Sharpton famous? I don't think he's mentioned at all in the article prior to the single sentence under "Legacy"Naznarreb 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rev. Sharpton himself said he "got his first big break with the Goetz case." The NY media considered Rev. Sharpton dishonest and ignored him prior to1985, but the NY Daily News, the NY Times, and NYC TV channel 7 broke ranks and put Al Sharpton on the map in the Goetz case to get a black "leader’s" commentary against Goetz. This backfired as Al Sharpton was expected to disappear after the Goetz case, but he did not, and Sharpton became a big name in NY politics. This has actually improved the cesspool of NY politics greatly: prior to Al Sharpton unethical white politicians would shamelessly exploit the race card, now Al Sharpton has forcefully displaced them, but he has less overall credibility.

Also see Al Sharpton's speaker's page: http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/Reverend-Al-Sharpton/5565

The link to the recent Duke lacrosse player case should also be restored because of major similarities: special prosecution, prosecutor withheld exonerating evidence, case was portrayed as racial, high publicity, media manipulation.

I disagree. They were in seperate states, in seperate eras, and any similarities to them on those issues belongs in articles on those issues, not in the article on this crime in particular (but if you'd like to link this article to those issues if not already, go right ahead, that would be appropriate). More importantly, the DIFFERENCES (especially in the details, down to the type of crime involved) severaly outweigh the similarities in the two cases. I don't edit war so if you truly want to link it I won't stop you, but that won't change the fact it's likely too unrelated to warrant a direct link to this case.

Whoever wrote the above short paragraph above totally misses the point of the link. Its about the similarities of the prosecution, not about the cases. BTW, what crime in the Goetz case are you referring to? I notice someone took down what NL wrote about prosecutorial misconduct, for which there actually is a lot of documentation. I'll probably be meeting NL at the NY Libertarian meeting about Oct. 10 and see if he wants to write something about prosecutorial misconduct on this Talk page first before adding it to the article. On the other hand a lot of Americans prefer to be lied to by their public officials. In this case they prefer just to focus on Goetz's conduct instead of the hoodlums, the prosecutor, New York government, or the media. It's simpler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.131.192 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This link is important to understanding much public perception (or misperception) of the case. As per the 1987 NY Times article (the link: Allegations of racism), why is "a consensus emerging among black politicians, civil-rights advocates and others that the virtual exoneration of Bernhard H. Goetz has dealt a serious blow to race relations in New York City.”? Think about it.

This article could use more detail on race, race politics, and media manipulation.

Confessions of a rocker

I was in 5th grade when Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" hit #1. At the time, I made a bet with a girl in my class that I knew all the words to the song. To prove it, I wrote them out. Turns out, I didn't know all the words:

Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's Got a Winning Team, Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland, Bardow, Budapest, Alabama, Cruise Jets, Princess Grace, Peyton Place, Trouble in the Sewers, (chorus) Hemingway, Eichman, Stranger in a Strange Land, Building, Berlin, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Lawrence of Arabia, British Beat Romania, Ayatollahs in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan, Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride, Heavy Metal, Suicide, Foreign Debts, Homeless Vets, AIDS, Crack, Burning Jets, Hypadermics on the Shore, China's Under Martial Law, Rock and Roller, Color War, I Can't Take It Anymore, (chorus)

Burning jets instead of Bernie Goetz? Trouble in the Sewers? What was I thinking? And I really had trouble with the start of the second verse. But I'm most ashamed of thinking British Beatlemania was British Beat Romania. As a classic rock lover, I'll never live that down.

Biased and unethical media

If this is how the media informs the public on high publicity cases, what about smaller stories? As an example how the media handles "race" cases see the following link: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=531 . Interesting gun control angle @ http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=6560889&nav=0RYv . One of the few accurate sources at this time seems to be the brief Wikipedia article - Newsom and Christian were not sexually mutilated or dismembered (while alive, no less!), despite what almost all internet sources say.

Unless you tune in to the local Knoxville news, you are most likely hearing about this heinous crime for the first time. Think about the first week of the Duke case: not the case itself, but the public reaction; the screaming media, the protests, Jackson, Sharpton. Can you honestly say it wouldn't have been the same if five white guys kidnapped, raped, and tortured a young black couple? Why does one black college student rate such vastly greater media and public attention than two white college students who were victims of a much more hideous crime? Could it be (gasp!) media bias? Instead we are fed every last detail of Paris Hilton, Nicole Simpson, etc. And it also seems James Byrd and Rodney King and Don Immus fit the print, but Channon Christian does not. Most people haven't even read an accurate account of the Tawana Brawley case - they should see the Wiki article.

Why were the Goetz hoodlums not prosecuted for perjury, but Mark Furman was? Tawana Brawley? As for the damage done by a misinformed public, a black columist wrote after the O.J. Simpson verdict that the jury was giving payback for Rodney King, the Goetz case, and Howard Beach. What a disgrace.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.234.113 (talk • contribs)

The problem in this case wasn't just some biased media. The media can only go with what information it has. If the prosecutor only releases a small amount of erroneous evidence (from a mountain of contradictory evidence), what can the media do but go with what it has?

But a lot of mainstream media could be criticised for not disseminating correct information once it was available. For example, the NY Times wrote an editorial that Goetz should be tried because the case was an opportunity to educate the public about self defense situations. When information was made available that contradicted their previous beliefs, they just dropped the subject. It apppears educating the public wasn't that important after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.48.210 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Comment: Whoever did the recent editing (Repliedthemockturtle), you did a great job. The article reads much better now. I bet you're a professional writer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.185.242 (talk • contribs) 15:58, November 3, 2007 (UTC)

References should be main priority, not trivia

The main weakness of this article is the lack of footnotes. Without inline references, there is no guarantee that the information is accurate. Providing references and deleting unsupported claims should be the main priority of this article, not re-adding totally uncited trivia sections about mentions of Bernhard Goetz in popular culture.Spylab 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree the "trivia" items were not needed, but with or without footnotes, this is the best authoritative article on the case. Slotnik himself was impressed by the facts when he read the article about a year ago. (He never heard of Wikipedia before, and he was responsible for correcting the error about "sharpened screwdrivers.") Do some serious checking if any fact strikes you as odd, you'll find this article is accurate. A law student will know more case facts by reading this brief Wiki article than all the published books out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.209.200 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC) BTW, RepliedtheMockTurtle, although I agree with SpyLab on the triva items (there are thousands of references to this case in the media, why list them ?), I think your reorganisation of the article was very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.209.200 (talk • contribs) 22:40, November 6, 2007 (UTC)

• Bottom line: Wikipedia is all about providing accurate and relevant information backed up by reliable sources. See WP:CITE and WP:PROVEIT for some Wikipedia policy pages on citing sources.Spylab 22:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are several hundred facts in the article. Should they all be cited? Should half be cited? Should a quarter be cited? Almost all facts can be verified by checking and cross-checking the reliable references listed, serious readers can look them up. One excellant reference that probably should be listed was the re-enactment of the shooting on Staten Island/Queens cable TV (MoranoVision) several years ago, but I lost track of it. The facts are available in the listed references anyway, but digging them out is harder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.209.200 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I direct you to official Wikipedia policies on citing sources. Read those and you'll find your answers. Readers should not have to cross-reference links listed at the bottom of the page. They should have aasily-accessible confirmation of facts in the form of footonotes throughout the article.Spylab 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Comment: I saw this page listed on WP:3O, and although I'm not giving an opinion, I must say that this page is somewhat difficult to read. I went through and added some unsigned templates and removed a few lines. Just as a heads up to everyone here:

• You're not supposed to edit other people's comments.
• To tab in a line, use the colons. If you're responding to someone else's comment, add a colon before your line so everything looks neatly paginated and easier to read.
• Sign your comments! Use four tildes (~~~~) to sign.

Hopefully someone will come along and give an opinion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I came here from the Wikipedia:third opinion page, and I have to say the article is fairly good. I think the criminal trial section should be rewritten entirely. As for the trivia section at the end: ordinarily I do not like to see trivia sections in articles, but in this case, it seems unobtrusive, though it lacks in-text citations. Other than that, I think this is overall a good article. 64.26.98.90 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I just put the Criminal Trial section in correct chronological order, but its just a beginning. The Criminal trial section should actually be broken down into two sections: First an "Indictment" section describing the first and second grand juries, and then the "Criminal Trial" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.255.61 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another third opinion

I, too, came here from Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here's what I think:

• The article is well written.
• The trivia section should be eliminated or absorbed into the rest of the article.
• References are given at the bottom as a bibliography, instead of inline citations, which bothers me.

In my opinion, such general references at the bottom of an article are totally useless, and a sign of author laziness. In the spirit of verifiability, a bibliography does nothing for me if I wish to verify a particular fact, because you're basically handing me a big stack of books and telling me to "go fish" for the tiny bit of information I want to verify.

As article authors, you can't know which fact a reader might want to check or follow up on. That doesn't mean every single sentence needs to be cited, but each paragraph should contain at least one relevant citation to back up the claims in it. And especially, any sentence that might be regarded as controversial or open to challenge should have its own citation. -Amatulic 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the Moranovision cable TV show where Goetz re-enacts the shooting? I could only find a brief reference to it on the internet.

Deletion of Billy Joel song

When Billy Joel wrote the song only one living person was mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.82.127 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the song's article: "Of the 56 individuals mentioned by name in the song, the following nine were still alive in 2007:" No need for the song to be linked in all 56 articles. --Dual Freq 23:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is Billy Joel's song taken off as one of the song's that mention his name, anyway? It fits the category. I put it back in since it belongs there with all the others.--12.201.55.10 11:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Brandon Harwell

Agree, all the songs should be removed, sorry I missed the others. None of them are culturally significant and amount solely to trivia, which is discouraged. Please cite a reputable source that establishes a cultural significance for these items, then add them. A simple mention in a song or a TV show is not a significant event. If the entire song or TV show is about the Goetz incident, then I can possibly see inclusion of the item. --Dual Freq 12:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the Billy Joel song about significant events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.185.242 (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are 56 individuals mentioned by name in the song. There is no need for the song to be linked in all 56 articles. Thats why the things are mentioned in the song article and not in the person's article. Simply being mentioned in a song is not a significant item, its trivia. If the song is solely about Goetz, then re-add it, but the Joel song is just a list of over 100 things and not specifically about Goetz. Making a list of songs or TV shows that simply mention his name is trivia and is discouraged. --Dual Freq 22:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right. The songs don't add much to the article.

Racial aspect

Why are we ignoring the biggest element in the lead of the article. We state the facts and make no POV. Calling him self-employed was just another way of saying that he didn't have a job. There are plenty of people calling themselves consultants who are very very underemployed. Radio Guy (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Radio Guy, are you high on something, or POV, or both? Racial aspect the biggest element? Two federal civil rights investigations said otherwise. Or maybe its so because you and Al Sharpton say so? Goetz was employed, the 4 hoodlums were not employed, unless you consider robbery employment. Read the whole article and the discussion above. You shouldn't be editing a mature article you know little about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.234.155 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ages of victims are in trhe teens

Later in the article, it states the ages. Goetz was convicted of a felony. Don't try to change the facts. The teens (3 out of 4 admitted) wanted to do a crime but were prevented. Even though they became victims only becuase another crimed them before they could crime him, they do not lose victim status. Radio Guy (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God, let me get this straight--they admit to trying to rob him, and then they try to apply for some sort of official "victim" status? Are you serious? After *admitting* to trying to rob the guy? I have officially heard everything.

They got what they deserve, which was only borne out by their subsequent crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.148.46 (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Radio Guy, R U high? Three of the four hoodlums applied to the Crime Victims Compensation Board, but their status as victims were all rejected by the CVCB for 2 reasons: (1) They refused to submit to interviews with the CVCB regarding the incident for which they were claiming victim status. (2) The CVCB independent investigation concluded that all (including Cabey) were in the process of committing a robbery when they were shot, and therefore they did not have CVCB victim status. Example: If a bystander is shot during a bank robbery, he/she is a victim and gets CVCB compensation. If the bank robber is shot during the bank robbery, he/she is not a victim, gets no CVCB compensation, and is not "crimed". If it was otherwise the public could not shoot rapists, robbers, murderers, and in the old days, horse thieves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.234.155 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

They were victims of jerkumstance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.153.142 (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent Parks case

Here is a link to the recent Parks case: *NY Times . This case looks like it has similar legal ramifications. It appears that Parks (like Goetz) was unable to give a totally accurate description of the incident without the benefit of additional facts. There are adrenaline induced effects on both response and memory. There isn’t much good detailed documentaion on victims successfully fighting back, maybe a Wiki article would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.168.36.230 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is needed

Take a look at this 2008 article: misinformation

Once misinformation is out there its difficult to correct it. And the author is an attorney no less. At least this misinformed article is not typical anymore, but without Wikipedia who knows what the media would be writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.78.99 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Its also interesting that one of phrases often used by Goetz's critics was "he shot them at point blank range", even though it was the 4 muggers who approached Goetz and determined the range. I suppose if the muggers were farther away the critics would have said they were no longer a threat.

Editing The incident section

Someone recently made significant edits to The incident section (which has been basically unchanged for over two years) based on old discredited material (maybe "Facts" in People vs. Goetz ?). Please bring up any questions you have about The incident section in this Talk section first before you make any significant changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.172.249.126 (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that editor, but I think the changes were for the better because they brought an encyclopedic tone to the one part of the article that lacked it. Further, I think citing Der Stern, a German-language newspaper, makes the whole paragraph subject to doubt since most people are unable to verify that the citation says all that is claimed. Surely the details of the shooting are covered in the NY Times or some other English-language reliable source. --CliffC (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Unfortunately the NY Times and other media do not cover the shooting details in an encyclopedic tone; that's the point of the link: "NY Times sets the record straight" and the other sources. You're right that Der Stern is a weak source; probably the book Subway Gunman or the Opie and Anthony interview should have been mentioned instead. The changes in The Incident section (that were reverted) were not for the better, unless you think the purpose of this article should be to slant facts towards a "prosection" of Goetz instead of a truthful presentaion of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.126.95 (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All the media has to do is report the facts, it's our job to provide the encyclopedic tone. And no "prosection" of Goetz is intended, either as someone's past typo for "prosecution" or the word's meaning of "dissection", whichever you meant. I'll leave that to past and present editorial writers. --CliffC (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Barry Allen was ducking when shot

To clarify the recent change by Erich Weber as to how Barry Allen was shot as described in his NY Times reference, Barry Allen was ducking when shot (Joe Quirk, ballistics expert). This was a difficult shot as Barry Allen was exceptionally fast. Also, to avoid confusion that might be caused by the NY Times reference, the witness who described Cabey as being shot when seated was Christopher Boucher, who said he saw Cabey being shot in the stomach with me standing directly in front of him, just as I have described in re-enactments of the shooting (Moranovision cable show). However the gun was empty on this “last” shot. Cabey was shot in the left side while seated with the fourth shot as described in the Wiki article. The good faith error by Dr. DiMaio in stating that Cabey was standing when shot was caused by Cabey leaning to the right at the instant he was shot, which resulted in the horizontal trajectory in his body. Note Dr. DiMaio emphatically qualified his conclusion. The description of the shooting in the Wiki Incident section is accurate. - Bernie Goetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.176.211 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with court transcript

Maybe I've missed some obvious discussion on the matter, but the version of events given here contradicts the transcript of the People vs. Goetz case. Is this known, and if so, am I missing something here? To be more specific, the most glaring inconsistency concerns the order of gunshots; here, it is stated that 5 shots were made in quick succession, one of which missed and one of which struck Cabey and paralyzed him (and mentions the subsequent scene in which Goetz attempts to shoot him again, only to have an empty barrel). The transcript describes the scene as such:

When Canty again requested money, Goetz stood up, drew his weapon, and began firing, aiming for the center of the body of each of the four. Goetz recalled that the first two he shot "tried to run through the crowd [but] they had nowhere to run". Goetz then turned to his right to "go after the other two". One of these two "tried to run through the wall of the train, but * * * he had [p. 102] nowhere to go". The other youth (Cabey) "tried pretending that he wasn't with [the others]" by standing still, holding on to one of the subway hand straps, and not looking at Goetz. Goetz nonetheless fired his fourth shot at him. He then ran back to the first two youths to make sure they had been "taken care of". Seeing that they had both been shot, he spun back to check on the latter two. Goetz noticed that the youth who had been standing still was now sitting on a bench and seemed unhurt. As Goetz told the police, "I said '[y]ou seem to be all right, here's another' ", and he then fired the shot which severed Cabey's spinal cord. Goetz added that "if I was a little more under self-control * * * I would have put the barrel against his forehead and fired." He also admitted that "if I had had more [bullets], I would have shot them again, and again, and again."

I'm coming to this article from out of the blue, so I am unaware of the treatment concerning this transcript, and whether or not its information has been discredited/discarded. It would seem to me that this version of events would take precedence, but I could be wrong. I just thought that I would point this out, because I noticed the discrepancy after reading this and then clicking on the link to the article concerning the appeals court trial.--C.Logan (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You’re pointing out the painfully obvious. Every law student studying self defense is aware of this decision, and Sol Wachtler wouldn’t even take the position that this version of events would take precedence. Why don’t you leave a note for him on the Talk section of his sanitized Wiki page, or email him at the Touro Law School to get his opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.141.239 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

=

No, you’re not missing something ....you’re just beginning to understand the issues raised at the beginning of the “Media manipulation, public misinformation, and interesting facts” section in the TALK above. Sure there are major inconsistencies with the “court transcript” you refer to and the Wiki article. Don’t consider Judge Wachtler’s ruling as definitive. A few nitwits over the years here tried to take the position that Wachtler’s ruling “was a legal ruling” and should therefore be definitive, but that arguement doesn’t hold water. There probably should have been an investigation into the prosecution of this case like there was in the Duke Lacrosse player’s case - that probably would have ended any remaining concerns about the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.189.167 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The events as Goetz has been describing them for the past 20 years are consistant with all reliable eyewitness testimony: that all shots occured “in an instant”, with no pauses. They are also consistant with all forensic evidence. I don’t see how an unbiased informed person could come to the conclusion that Wachtler’s “version of events would take precedence”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.57.6 (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

==

Wactler’s version of events would be valid if you:

(1) Believe the prosecutor’s lead witness, Sally Smithern (a prostitute in the subway car next to Goetz’s car), whose comical testimony of events described the shooting as happening backwards, and who heard a PAUSE before the last shot. Did the prosecutor have to go to an adjacent subway car to find a witness to support his claims?

(2) Believe Christopher Boucher, who saw and heard Goetz shooting Cabey in the stomach.

(The testimony of the above two are a good arguement why there should not be partial releases of testimony prior to trial: witnesses often tailor their testimony to match published reports. Not to mention legal ethics and procedure.)

(3) Believe James Ramseur - a champagne witness!

(4) Disregard the factual evidence that one shot missed and Cabey was shot once in the left side.

(5) Disregard Goetz’s explanation of events.

(6) Disregard the other eyewitnesses in the subway car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.134.121.243 (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)