People v. Goetz (1986)

1. Give an overview of the case.

The controversial People v. Goetz (1986) involves the Defendant, Bernhard Goetz (Defendant) who shot and injured four young black men on a subway train in the Bronx. Four black youths, Troy Canty, Darryl Cabey, James Ramseur and Barry Allen were riding the subway train; two of the youths had screwdrivers hidden on their person, later admitting the intention of using these screwdrivers to unscrew the coin boxes attached to arcade games. The defendant was also riding the train and had an unlicensed .38 caliber pistol, a gun he had procured in 1981. Canty approached Goetz with possibly one of the other young men beside him, and said, “Give me five dollars”: there was no use of force nor was their a display of a weapon. The Defendant answered by standing and releasing four shots from his unlicensed gun, the one that he had been carrying in the waistband of his pants. A bullet made contact with each of the young men and then Goetz fired another shot at Cabey, permanently damaging his spinal cord. Goetz fled the scene, ultimately surrendering himself to the police in New Hampshire a week later. Much of the controversy surrounding the case revolves around whether or not a person has a right to engage in deadly force if they hold the belief that they are in clear and present danger for severe bodily harm.

2. Consider the following:

a. New York tried Goetz for attempted murder and assault. The jury acquitted him of both charges. The jury said Goetz “was justified in shooting the four men with the silver plated .38-caliber revolver he purchased in Florida.” They did convict him of illegal possession of a firearm, for which the court sentenced Goetz to one year in jail.

b. Following the sentencing, Goetz told the court: “this case is really more about the deterioration of society than it is about me….I believe society needs to be protected from criminals.”

Criminal law professor George Fletcher followed the trial closely. After the acquittal, he commented:

The facts of the Goetz case were relatively clear, but the primary fight was over the moral interpretation of the facts…I am not in the slightest bit convinced that the four young men were about to mug Goetz. If he had said, “Listen buddy, I wish I had $5, but I don’t,” and walked to the other side of the car the chances are 60-40 nothing would have happened. Street-wise kids like that are more attuned to the costs of their behavior than Goetz was. (qtd. In Roberts 1989)

If Professor Fletcher is right, was Goetz justified in shooting?

Professor Fletcher made an extremely astute and correct observation when he observed that Goetz was not justified in shooting, as he noted that a mere “sorry, I don’t have five dollars” would have readily diffused the situation. It’s more likely that this case is a slice of life about racism in society and in the justice system, as it existed in the 1980s. Goetz was clearly raw and somewhat traumatized and on edge from the time he was mugged in 1981, the incident which caused him to purchase the gun in the first place. Goetz was not behaving reasonably: any reasonable person would have finished the exchange verbally before resorting to the use of a firearm. Professor Fletcher is most likely correct: the men had no intention of mugging Goetz: had... Under what circumstances can people use deadly force, according to the New York statutes cited in the opinion?
According to the New York Statues cited in the opinion, the justification statue needed an aspect of it to be objective, in that deadly physical force is acceptable as long as a reasonable person would believe that he is in imminent danger of injury or death.

4. Do you agree with those circumstances?

As worded, the statue is reasonable.

5. Would you add more? Remove some? Which ones? Why?

However, there should be a detail in it, which specifies that there should be clear evidence of imminent danger: such as someone brandishing a weapon, or engaging in threatening body language. Also, since this case, jurors are now instructed to consider a defendant’s background and reflect upon whether a reasonable person would feel in danger if in that same situation. This is to ensure that one accounts for the difference in people’s backgrounds and how that can skew a person’s sense of danger.

6. Were Goetz’s shots a preemptive strike? Retaliation? Necessary for self-protection? Defend your answer.

Goetz’s shots were clearly fearful and largely unnecessary for self-protection. If the victims had been white, it is likely that he would have been tried for attempted murder and assault.

State v. Stewart (1988)

1. LIST all the facts and circumstances relevant to deciding whether Peggy Stewart was in “imminent” danger.

The State v. Stewart (1988) is a case where a woman, Peggy Stewart, was tried for shooting and killing her sleeping husband. In this case, Stewart’s legal team claimed her actions were self-defense, which might have seemed absurd to some. However, Stewart’s team went to great lengths to establish how she was the victim of long-term abuse. Apparently, the morning of the day that Stewart shot and killed her spouse; she found a loaded .357 magnum in the house she lived in with her husband. Aside from being frightened by this finding, Stewart testified that, “her husband often made remarks about how she shouldn’t bother cleaning the house because she wouldn’t be there for long. That evening, after enduring the physical and sexual abuse of her husband, Stewart considered the possibility of suicide” (Wiley).

2. Summarize the court majority’s arguments against imminent danger. Summarize the dissent’s arguments for imminent danger. Summarize the dissent’s arguments for imminent danger.

Hence these details demonstrate a long-standing and recent history of both physical and sexual abuse, as well as repeated threats. These facts demonstrate that Stewart was indeed in very real and prominent danger, however, the facts do not suggest that the danger was immediate. In this manner, the court majority’s arguments against imminent danger are numerous. The fact that her husband was asleep at the time, shows that Stewart had a variety of options: she could have fled the house, fled the country, called the police, or any number of actions to protect herself that she did not engage in. Her husband was not threatening her at that moment, and Stewart had numerous options to protect herself or leave the situation that she did…