Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting/Archive 1

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)

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)

I find this article extremely Pro-Goetz and racially muted to the point of being bizarre. While it includes supportive reactions for Goetz from CORE (which is a highly criticized group that remains at the periphery of Black America) it says absolutely nothing for the tremendous backlash against these crimes and the overwhelming coverage of public outcry over this event that pointed to Goetz as a trigger happy and paranoid racist. In so many ways this extremely favorable light cast on Goetz is a complete misrepresentation of New Yorkers' reactions to this crime. Is it written by Goetz himself? It seems to linger in a whiff of racism just as his shootings did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.65.34 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh? There was a fair bit of support for him initially, although according to Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965495-2,00.html) it dwindled a little bit with the revelations of the "extra shot". Details of the mens' history and subsequent actions is relevant, because it helps place the event in context and tells us something of the men he shot (particularly Ramseur). It is not meant to justify Goetz's actions, merely place them in context. And it should be noted he had support from blacks and whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GimpyFauxHippy (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 December 2009 (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
 * 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
 * At 19:20, 30 July 2006,  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 say s :) 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
 * 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)

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

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

"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. Cola War, jerk off. see pepsi_v_coke.97.86.255.52 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2008 (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


 * 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: Hopefully someone will come along and give an opinion. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t · c ] 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Comment: I came here from the 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 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)


 * Is Ramseur still an official victim after he's raped and sodomized the pregnant girl? What does the rulebook say on that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.96.214 (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2010 (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)

"All the media has to do is report the facts, it's our job to provide the encyclopedic tone." is baloney. What if different media say different things? Truth should be paramount. Following is the 1st principle from “The Elements of Journalism — What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect.” It is a good standard for anybody - Wikipedia, the courts, and the New York media:

“Over time journalists have developed nine core principles to meet the task. They comprise what might be described as the theory of journalism: 1. JOURNALISM’S FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE TRUTH Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can–and must–pursue it in a practical sense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.67.107 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is verified facts, not the truth. We don't do our own research, but we can balance sources against each other. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please, not that tired old standard, which has since been refined: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Study this case: published "reliable" sources say opposite things. The purpose of VERIFIABILITY is to get to the TRUTH. Better to use the standard "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Note COMMON SENSE. If almost all "published reliable sources" state Cabey was shot twice, but all doctors at different trials testify Cabey was shot once, which is acceptable for Wikipedia? Print both, and it will educate perceptive readers. (For example, a perceptive reader will realize the NY Times, a published reliable source, wasn't interested in conveying the truth to its readers!) See the later Wiki standard for significant sources.

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)


 * User:172.164.176.211, congratulations on your fortitude and bravery for standing up to all of the people who sided with the criminals.Lestrade (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

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 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 - at the time the public was led to believe Cabey was shot twice. 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, its a good example how to write a biased description. 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)

Its interesting that Wachtler refers to the gang as "youths", even though at the time of this ruling two of them had been arrested for additional robberies and a rape. Maybe he didn't know their ages, otherwise it sounds biased and even corrupt. Maybe he wanted to please Governor Cuomo, who wanted Goetz prosecuted and convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.17.241 (talk) 02:49, 25 August 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)

The phrase "stated mission"
The four youths claimed after the event that their screwdrivers were for stealing from video machines. The video machines are watched very carefully with video cameras and it would be very foolish to try to steal from them. Goetz, in the confusing circumstances, probably failed to notice the bulges under the clothes of the two with the four screwdrivers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.246.75 (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuation on the Wachtler theme, racism, and New York politics
With all shots occurring in rapid succession (<1.6 seconds, maybe even 1 second), some statements in Wachtler’s version such as “Goetz nonetheless fired his fourth shot at him” indicate at best willful ignorance on Wachtler’s part or an asinine judgmental mind set, and at worst, a corrupt approach where the courts are not interested in the truth seeking process, but treat the defendant as a political enemy. For about 10 years some elements in the New York legal, political, and media establishments presented (or tried to present) this case to the public not as an individual vs. criminals, but as a race case, and bent over backwards to ignore the facts. Why? Would some politicians benefit from racial resentment and division?

Governor Cuomo, who at the time had presidential ambitions, went to California to test the presidential waters and spoke in both LA and SF about New York’s successful social programs. In LA the audience laughed at him. In SF he got a better reception; after his speech the audience sat on its hands - there was silence. Suprisingly this was not reported in the NY media, probably the kind of news not fit to print. Surveys at the time showed Goetz had about twice the name recognition as Cuomo in California (more in other places), so Californians instead of viewing NY as a successful role model, viewed NY as a crime ridden hell hole. Goetz was reported nationwide saying, “New York government is incompetent, inept, and corrupt.” This led to Cuomo stating, “Goetz was wrong, and everybody knows it.” A prosecution to silence critics is an abuse of the legal process not much different than the selective prosecution of one’s political rivals, ie.- the prosecution of Bill Clinton. Its called criminalizing the conduct of your opponents. If its acceptable for the little guys, then its acceptable for the big guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.187.234 (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Indicting Goetz shut him up and got New Yorkers to focus their attention on Goetz’s alleged misconduct instead of street crime and their own government’s incompetence and failed policies. It was either Goetz going down or Cuomo. The NY courts were used as a political tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.167.221 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Did the governor cause the prosecution ?
Prosecutions like this don’t happen by accident. There is a good chance Gov. Cuomo was behind it, who else could have had that kind of influence? This would explain the obsessed prosecution, bias by the NY Times and NY Daily News, disappearing files, and coddling of the muggers by the authorities. But this can’t be proven unless someone from the Cuomo administration talks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.183.69 (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You Don't Look Too Bad...
I'm finding quite a few sources that say that Goetz did successfully fire a shot after the "You don't look too bad ..." line - and it was that shot that paralyzed him. (Examples: Eighties Club, Court TV and Law Library, to name just a few). Without a reasonable objection, I plan on changing the text to reflect this, as I actually can't find anything to suggest the text's account.-- daniel  folsom  23:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in the text account suggesting otherwise, except for Goetz's denial years later "In a 2008 interview". Any clarification would be welcome.  The New York Times mentions the statement in accounting for the five rounds, here:


 * "You don't look too bad ..." also appears in two convoluted sentences that by their structure suggest that Goetz's initial belief that he had shot Cabey twice was correct. I've simplified them to make clear that Cabey was shot at twice, but struck once, and added two citations. --CliffC (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From where did you get the description of the shooting (the 4 sentences) in the boxed area above? What's your source? ..... Oh, I now see the description of events is  from a NY Times article before the trial. Is that going to be used for an accurate description of the shooting? What's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.84.102 (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The point was to agree with User:Danielfolsom's statement above that Goetz shot Cabey after making that statement, and to offer a more reliable source to support it than the three he mentions. --CliffC (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

CliffC - both you and Danielfolsom are in error to use these sources. There are many other erroneous sources out there, that's why there should have been an investigation into the prosecution to clear things up. These sources rely on Goetz's statements in NH where he said he shot Cabey twice. Later some of these sources acknowledged Cabey was shot once, but they arbitrarily choose that it was the last shot, without backing it up, as you now have done. Any recreation of the shooting with your recent edits doesn't make sense, try to do a step by step description of the shooting and see if it makes sense. Unfortunately you don't have the advantage of having seen a re-enactment of the shooting. Can you try to contact the Moranovision Staten Island cable TV show for the shooting re-enactment, and then post it on Utube? You and others would then have a better understanding. You might also read the book "Subway Gunman" which is based on the transcript of the criminal trial. This book doesn't explain everything, but at least it doesn't have the misinformation your other media sources have. You should revert your recent edits to what was there before; your recent edits aren't even consistent with the Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.49.216 (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read my most recent edit more closely, it says that Goetz's NH statement that he shot Cabey twice was wrong; feel free to spell it out more clearly than I did.  When you say I "and Danielfolsom are in error to use these sources" I assume you mean the three sources Daniel mentioned, I don't like them either, partly because they incorrectly state that Cabey was shot twice, but mostly because the three are (in the order listed) 1) a pop culture site, 2) trivial coverage, 3) obviously partisan.  Cabey was shot once, per the medical examiner testimony reported in the second reference in my edit.  I'm not going to seek out and cite some TV station re-enactment, much less post it on YouTube - this messy article is rife with repetitions and contradiction; what's really needed as a source is an online copy of the criminal trial transcript.  Finally, if my recent edit, based on the NY Times (arguably the most reliable source available for this case) is not "consistent with the Wiki article", feel free to bring the rest of the article in line.  --CliffC (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my sources were terrible - I wasn't saying we should go off my sources, I was just saying that I can't find any sources that said what the article said. And I'd like to point out that the article now contradicts itself:

"Goetz then saw Cabey moving on the bench and confessed to approaching Cabey and saying, 'You don't look too bad, here's another,' and then attempted to shoot Cabey again in the stomach, with an empty gun. Cabey, who was briefly standing prior to the shooting, was sitting on the subway bench during all attempted shots. In his subsequent police statement, Goetz explained, 'If I had had more [bullets], I would have shot them again, and again, and again.' In a 2008 interview, Goetz denied having actually made the statement 'You don't look too bad, here's another' in the subway car, but said that he did try to shoot Cabey again, after which he knew he was out of bullets[2]."

And then a few paragraphs later:

"In his initial statements to the police, Goetz said that he had shot Cabey twice, something that was reported as fact in the media for 18 months up to the time of the criminal trial. Actually, his first shot at Cabey had missed.[3] Then, after looking at Cabey, Goetz said 'You don't look too bad; here's another' and fired again, severing Cabey's spine.[1]"

Can one of you to clarify and perhaps make the text a bit more encyclopedic (i.e. removing "Actually")-- daniel  folsom  04:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What a great idea to use that source (Kirk Johnson) for an accurate description of the shooting, great research. It was written before the criminal trial even, but its from the NY Times, so it must be accurate, and is arguably the most reliable source available for this case?? It seems authoritative and the writer is confident about what he has written. Should we do a rewrite of the shooting details directly quoting from the article?: "Most of the facts of the case are not in dispute. Mr. Goetz took out an unregistered pistol and pulled the trigger four times. Three of the shots hit James Ramseur and Troy Canty, both then 19 years old, and Barry Allen, 18, all of the Bronx. The fourth shot missed and ricocheted in the subway car, and Mr. Goetz paused. Seeing another of the youths, Darrel Cabey, 19, unharmed, Mr. Goetz said, according to his videotaped statement, You don't look so bad - here's another. He fired again, and the bullet severed Mr. Cabey's spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down." Kirk Johnson should have written a book on the subject.

And now I or anyone should feel free to bring the rest of the article in line with your edits ?? Because that would be more encyclopedic?? Or maybe we should do a rewrite based on corrupt Judge Wachtler's version of the shooting (People vs. Goetz, see Wiki articles), since that's what Kirk Johnson used as his source. That would be getting it more directly from the horse's mouth. Oh, BTW, what did ex-Judge Wachtler use for his source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.84.102 (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Since you don't acknowledge Goetz's re-enactment on Moranovision,  I'll add a citation from 4 eyewitnesses that contradicts the information you recently added to the article. Its from the book Subway Gunman, which is considered an authoritative reference on the subject, unlike the unreliable media articles you are choosing. Why don't you buy a copy so you know something about the case before you start editing? Today you can buy it on Ebay for $3 + shipping. Then you might remove your recent edits and revert to the previous article. Also, if you read the Wiki article closely, Goetz shot at (or tried to shoot at) Cabey 3 times. I think the article should have more citations so readers like you get less confused by the misinformation out there, note most media articles said Cabey was shot twice, although many of them have been taken down since this Wiki article.
 * Do you have any other sources? I mean, saying you have a book that some[who?] consider authoritative isn't really enough - we need multiple sources.-- daniel  folsom  02:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Give me a couple of days to evaluate the article some more, I think the issues can be simplified. Your concern about sources is valid and hopefully can be answered, plus Wikipedia recognizes the importance of reliable sources. This case has it all, and could be enlightening about using the internet, media, books, and trial transcripts as sources. BTW, I think the internet is great and use it for 99% of my research, but in this case there are better sources, which hopefully will be explained to your satisfaction. A trial transcript would cost over $10,000. So in the meantime why doesn't at least one of you buy the book "Subway Gunman" (ebay $3 + shipping)? Most of the chapters are copies of the criminal trial transcript written in 1st person, and you don't even have to read the whole book to get the shooting details. (Other books out there don't give reliable facts on shooting details.)  Will get back to you soon.

Please clarify something. You state "Cabey was shot once, per the medical examiner testimony reported in the second reference in my edit." The second reference you mention does NOT clearly say Cabey was shot once. But it also does not say outright that Cabey was shot twice either. It avoids being definitive on that. Prior to that article other NY Times articles and other media were reporting Cabey was shot twice. How can you say and know Cabey was shot once from this source? I can't find one satisfactory NY Times article that clearly says Cabey was shot once. Can you name one? However I agree that your conclusion that Cabey was shot once (in the left side) is correct, but not by using your article as a source. Again, I will try to significantly improve the article in a few days. It will probably be a two or three step process, and both your inputs would be helpful along the way. BTW, i love this quote just found while surfing, and have to share it with you: A woman from Harlem, commenting on the case, said, "It comes down to this: Five assholes met on a train. And one of them had a gun." Could that be used as a reference? Its from a reliable internet source that does fact-checking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.222.248 (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't clarify that because I haven't said it, sorry, I've merely said that I've found sources that suggest that it was after the "you don't look too bad" line that the man was shot again, and it was that shot, which was fired successfully, that caused spinal injury. As to the quote: I'm not sure how it could be included in the article, as if we were to include it it may sound a little bit non-neutral on our part, but it all depends on context.-- daniel  folsom  03:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are sources that say that, MOST internet sources say that. Everyone involved with this article was well aware of that. That's the point of the link "BookRags (interesting old summary of case)", to show how old media sources said Cabey was shot twice with "You don't look too bad, here's another." It sounds like you guys are just becoming aware of that now. As for good internet sources describing the subway shooting, there are none. This Wiki article was the one exception, even though it should be improved by explaining sources of information. It turns out unfortunately the only reliable source is the criminal trial transcript, which has MANY sources: Forensic evidence (blood does not lie...), plus EACH witnesses should be considered a separate and possibly reliable source. And when a number of sworn trial witnesses say the same thing, it is highly likely that it is a true fact. BTW, I was joking about the quote. I thought it was funny, but others might not think so.

Note that the way you use your statement "we need multiple sources" indicates you have the requirements for "reliable sources" backward, at least in this case. If multiple witnesses to an incident make sworn statements in a legal proceeding, then these are multiple sources. If Goetz in NH in good faith says he shot Cabey twice (which he later retracted), and then 400 websites repeat Cabey was shot twice, do you have 400 sources that say Cabey was shot twice?

Again, I challenge you to find ONE New York Times source that clearly states Cabey was shot once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.84.102 (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to your challenge - however pointing out some internet conspiracy isn't going to help your case. As to the matter of witnesses: witnesses aren't reliable sources, the medium that reports what the witnesses said would have to be a reliable source. Please check out WP:RS.-- daniel  folsom  16:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take the Cabey-was-shot-only-once challenge. Simple arithmetic: five bullets in the gun, "...The fourth shot missed...", four would-be muggers ended up shot.  Ergo, each was shot once. Whether or not you like what the Times says, here's what Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
 * Daniel points out that witnesses are not reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition, and I'll add that also applies to the shooter himself. Also, a juror can't be the best of sources because he's only allowed to know and hear as much as the judge thinks appropriate.  The IP editor here should drop the sarcasm and realize that he won't find a better source of edited, vetted material than the NY Times series (and of course the text will need to be restated to avoid copyright violation).
 * The advanced search at nytimes.com can sort search results by date.   yields 86 articles, starting with the initial report on December 23, 1984. Simply   produces 636 results that can be further refined by adding search terms. --CliffC (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL! But I disagree with you. The NY Times even wrote an editorial AFTER your reference that clearly states Cabey was shot twice (but they did print a retraction after being threatened with a Slotnick a lawsuit). Maybe their editorial board just doesn’t read as good as you.

Sorry for being sarcastic, but how should one react when debating those who apparently value bureaucratic standards over truth? If you change your approach, I’ll change mine.

Yes, its pretty clear five shots were fired, that's undisputed, (although you don’t know for sure Goetz  didn’t have a 6 shot gun). And congratulations, you STARTED to do some analysis. But if you are going to do some analysis, why don't you continue the analysis a little more and try to do a basic re-enactment of the shooting? Logic shows the 3rd shot missed. It would be best if you figure that out for yourself, but if you have trouble I’ll give you some hints. Anyway, how would Kirk Johnson know  the fourth shot missed, and not the second .... or the third? What was his source? Or don’t you care what his source was? Or .... was he using logic? Anyway it was printed. And now its on the internet, so its verifiable by your definition. The NY Times wrote at least a dozen times Cabey was shot twice (as do most media articles). And now, according to you, we "won't find a better source of edited, vetted material than the NY Times series" ..... not the trial transcript with witnesses and forensic evidence, not Goetz's re-enactments where its all easily explained, but for shooting details the NY Times Kirk Johnson article is the reliable verifiable source!

You might be right that you "won't find a better source of edited, vetted material than the NY Times series"....... IF you restrict yourself to present internet articles. However since the internet probably will be the most powerful source of intelligence/knowledge in the world, we should use the best standards we can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.114.253 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * IP 172.165.114.253, based on your aversion to standards and the research suggestions you make, it's clear you don't know very much about how Wikipedia works. I've put a 'Welcome' template on your talk page to help.  In particular please review The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and try to respect them. Among other points, they require verifiable accuracy and point out that original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and thus are inappropriate.


 * Your IP address keeps changing so there's no way for us to even know we're dealing with the same person – please consider registering an account. Doing so provides several benefits, among them the ability to develop a reputation, build trust and respect, and help others assume good faith on your part when you edit.  I am reluctant to respond to further IP edits on this page.  --CliffC (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Don’t try to whitewash Goetzs crimes. The NY Times reference is a bad reference because it contradicts itself. First it says Cabey was shot once “Three of the shots hit James Ramseur and Troy Canty, both then 19 years old, and Barry Allen, 18, all of the Bronx. The fourth shot missed and ricocheted in the subway car, and Mr. Goetz paused. Seeing another of the youths, Darrel Cabey, 19, unharmed, Mr. Goetz said, according to his videotaped statement, You don't look so bad - here's another. He fired again, and the bullet severed Mr. Cabey's spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.’”

Later it states “Whether his fifth shot, fired after the four youths had fallen, must be judged by a different legal standard or whether Mr. Goetz was still reasonably defending himself from harm.”

The self admitted “puzzled” NY Times reference was replaced with 3 better later references that clearly state Goetz shot Cabey twice. Goetz confessed to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.51.139 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Goetz interview in German newsweekly
The single sentence cited to Stern magazine (link here) reads "In a 2008 interview with Stern news magazine, Goetz denied having actually made the statement "You don't look too bad, here's another" in the subway car, but said that he did try to shoot Cabey again, after which he knew he was out of bullets." My German is poor and this is perhaps a fine point, but it seems to me that what Goetz said about trying to shoot Cabey "again" is better translated as "a second time". Here's the original question and answer, would a German speaker translate them for us? Thanks.
 * Interviewer: Für viele New Yorker waren Sie ein Held. Einige warfen Ihnen aber auch Kaltblütigkeit vor.
 * Goetz: Es ist viel Mist über mich erzählt und geschrieben worden. Von wegen, ich hätte zu Cabey (dem Opfer, das heute im Rollstuhl sitzt, Anm. d. Red.) gesagt: "Du siehst gar nicht so schlecht aus, hier ist noch eine", und ihn dann zum zweiten Mal angeschossen. Das ist Quatsch. Ich hatte gar keine Kugel mehr.

--CliffC (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I make it:
 * Interviewer: For many New Yorkers, you were a hero. Some, however, accuse you of coldbloodedness.
 * Goetz: A lot of crap has been told and written about me. As if I'd said to Cabey (the victim who today sits in a wheelchair, editor's note): "You don't look all that bad, here's another", and then shot him for the second time. That's nonsense. I had no more bullets at all.

Kelisi (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank very much, I'll rework the current sentence. But first... (new section below)...  --CliffC (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable sources differ..."
I propose that we collect all the shooting details (which are now repetitious, conflicting, and scattered throughout the article) into a single section Sequence of shots leading off with something like ''Reliable sources differ in reporting the sequence of shots fired and whether Cabey was shot once or twice. Goetz himself has given conflicting statements on these issues and jurors have reported confusion.'' Then lay out the basic facts agreed on by all sources. Next, simply state who said what, and when, about the points of disagreement and leave it at that. Comments? Hope to hear from registered editors. --CliffC (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As a first step toward the above, I've divided section 'The incident' into several named subsections, and relocated some text to support the division. No content was added or removed.  As I find sources toward a 'Sequence of shots' section that will (hopefully) satisfy everyone, I'll be making changes to other sections as I go along.  --CliffC (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have rewritten and expanded section First and second grand juries including lots of new citations; some of these will likely be useful toward a well-cited Sequence of shots section, please be patient.  --CliffC (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Same as above for section Civil trial. Removed the paragraph about jury confusion and beliefs since none of its statements were supported by the offered citation.  Kept the citation itself as valuable.  --CliffC (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have broken up over-long section Public reaction into three parts, 'Supporters', 'Detractors' and 'Others'. Did some rearranging but no real change in content. Still needs a copyedit and some tweaking.  --CliffC (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Added a Statements to police section for the Concord NH interviews and relocated two statements there from elsewhere in the article. Trimmed the use of the German newsweekly citation mentioned above to only what it clearly supports, that Goetz has disputed making the "You don't look so bad, here's another" statement.  Some parts of the new section will probably fit better in the Sequence of shots section that still needs to be rewritten, and some might move to a Criminal trial section expansion later.  --CliffC (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sequence of shots now complete, also some material was moved there from "Statements to police".  --CliffC (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did a top-to-bottom copyedit, cleanup and general smoothing out. Added misc facts, removed some repetition, trimmed some excess words, shared all citations to Mark Lesly book.  Will merge in tonight's 172.xxx.xxx.xxx edits later.  Section Criminal trial still to be expanded.  --CliffC (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As an important step in determining the Sequence of shots, shouldn't it first be resolved if ALL shots occurred in Rapid succession (1.0 to 1.6 seconds)? Determining this would eliminate some versions of events as to what actually happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.15.62 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Link to picture of subway car is unsatisfactory
The picture is from 1971, 13 years prior to the incident. The car has no graffiti! There has to be a better picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.220.246 (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please sign your talk page edits with four tildes ( ~ ), thanks, and consider registering an account.


 * That's not just any subway car, that's the car the shootings would take place in 13 years later. The car number isn't mentioned or the photo cited in the article just yet.  Have added a external link to a photo of a more typically vandalized 80s-era R-22 model car for contrast.  --CliffC (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Subway car seating diagram
Have been looking for a diagram or blueprint of the seating configuration of a model R-22 subway car to link to. Funny how the newspapers threw all that ink at the shootings but never printed a diagram. "Our readers ride these things every day, why bother." Any links appreciated.

There's a photo of a very cleaned-up car with the same dimensions at the Transit Museum, a different model, an R-17 with pleather seats, not the indestructible fiberglass I think the R-22 had. Have added as an external link; will use as a citation when I find a spot. --CliffC (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on recent article edits
The article has recently been improved, and there are a few details I wasn’t aware of. I’m not concerned about errors in the article other than the shooting incident, but now there are some significant errors included in the recent rewrites:

While offering different versions of the shooting, the recent good faith efforts have deleted my acknowledged simple concise version of the shooting (described on the Moranovision show and Opie & Antnony), which I maintain is the accurate version, and was in the Wiki article for a few years. Who else other than me would know ? What is their ultimate source? By now writers should know a lot of cited material is incorrect. There are cited sources on the order of the shots, but how could anybody other than me know how the shots were fired? Note the actual order of shots and Cabey’s posture was not presented correctly at the criminal trial even by the defense, for reasons of trial strategy, we were still figuring things out and didn’t want to complicate things.

Cabey was shot with the fourth shot while sitting. Probably he and I are the only ones who could know that. I would like to see others defend their versions and not just state them.

I shot with one hand. This was settled long before the criminal trial even; I did a number of interviews describing this, but the sources are no longer obvious because the case is 24 years old. I never shot a gun with both hands in my life. Shooting while holding a gun with both hands is done mostly in the movies for dramatic effect, and only a small percentage of expert speed shooters use 2 hands. Note one witness testified I shot with both hands, but he got other things wrong too. Also note it is very difficult to maneuver quickly if you hold a handgun using both hands. It would also be helpful to have the sentence about initiating trigger pull before the gun is aligned on the target.

I’ll put a brief description of the shooting on my webpage within a month or so, its been so long since I’ve edited it I’ll have to look up the password. The actual sequence of shots is  what was  in the Wiki article before the recent edits. Hopefully someone will add and cite it, maybe they won’t, I don’t care as long as I have my say out there and its linked to the article. Its something I probably should have done long ago anyway.

BTW, many early sources use Bernhard as my first name because I used my father’s name on my drivers license (for various reasons) when I turned myself in in NH. No big deal, the actual spelling is Bernard, check my birth records or a credit report.

CliffC - The 25th anniversary is coming up and it is likely some major media will want to interview me here in New York. I will try to do a major media interview then with a re-enactment, and hopefully it will wind up on the internet so Wiki writers will consider it “real”. If an audience is allowed (as in the Moranovision re-enactment) I will let you know beforehand if you let me know your contact information, maybe you’re in NYC already. Of course the audience will be encouraged to ask questions. - Bernie Goetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.232.239 (talk • contribs)


 * The longstanding version of the shooting, with Ramseur shot last (link here), was replaced with cited material from reliable sources; they may not be correct in every detail but they are all that Wikipedia can go by, per WP:RS and WP:V. I would certainly cite and link to any description or details of the shooting posted at www.berniegoetz.net, assuming that's owned by Goetz and not a fan site.


 * It's somewhat difficult for readers to visualize who was initially positioned where,* so it would be a big plus to have a link to the televised reenactment mentioned a couple of times earlier on this page. Barring someone discovering that clip or obtaining it from the station, maybe the New York media (Fox for sure!) will give Goetz a chance to do another reenactment for the 25th anniversary.  It would be even better if they could film it inside one of the old cars to show how tight everything was, but I'm guessing the MTA wouldn't go along with that.  --CliffC (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, that's satisfactory, and I do own BernieGoetz.net. I tried to get BernieGoetz.com several years ago but a speculator owns it and wanted too much money. Yup, thats right - a person does not automatically have a right to a website with their name, so I had to settle for BernieGoetz.net. Also, in the MoranoVision re-enactment there were a lot of extra folding chairs for the audience, so we just set up chairs to duplicate the subway benches and used audience volunteers. I like the  idea  of different media descriptions of the event posted along with my description. Ultimately to many readers the article will then serve the additional important function of showing how some media can screw things up. - BG

OK, its done. See the bottom of the "Bio & letters" page on my website. Sorry that its in white print on a blue background; my new computer doesn't have the right editing program, so it could be a little tricky to cut and paste. Its obviously appropriate my version should be included in the Wiki article, actually considering the situation its inappropriate if its not. - BG


 * Prior to the shots, just before I stood up, Canty was at 10 o'clock, Allen at 11, Ramseur at 1, and Cabey at 3 o'clock, and their positions during the shooting were basically the same. This was described in many media sources 24 years ago but it might not be on the internet now. I can add this to my Bio/letters page if you want to add this to the Wiki article and need a cite. Don't let this confuse you with my videotaped statements of muggers order 1 - 4.

I also added a "cite needed" to a statement in the article that could be misleading - at the civil trial I testified Cabey was the fourth shot and Ramseur the fifth shot. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.108.71 (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Server lag overreaction
172.xxx.xxx.xxx, there is a huge server delay tonight, I suggest you take a long walk to cool down and wait for them to catch up. Then, read my recent edit summaries and talk page edits. Next, read your own. An apology will be welcome.

And please, when making changes, keep in mind WP:RS and WP:V. --CliffC (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Apology offered. I would rather you do most of the editing on the article than someone else.  I shouldn't have said arrogance and bias. You were right about someone probably knocking over Gant (Probably Florez  - there was a seated man with a newspaper on my left.), so I put back your language. You can spell my name with an h, that's what was used in the  legal proceedings anyway. Why you look deeply into somethings and blindly accept other things is beyond me. Don't be freaked out about Time getting it wrong about both hands, that's Amerika. If the police were sent the wrong way, weigh someones testimony. This case has to be an education, so you got something out of it. We agree my testimony and subsequent descriptions should be in the article.


 * Your writing is the best I've seen and could someday be part of the accepted shooting reference. It's perceptive and seeks the truth, not something to be taken for granted. If you want to write something that could be classic, let me know, there might be a get-together on the 25th anniversary. It could be an opportunity while there are still living witnesses. I've put out feelers. There should be a re-enactment.


 * If you want to revert any of my edits, go ahead, but "repeated" is more descriptive than "agreed." - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.199.105 (talk • contribs)


 * Apology accepted. I'll mention again that using ever-changing AOL IP addresses affects credibility, so why not register an account.  Just so we're on the same page, I agreed that the account of the shooting posted at www.berniegoetz.net deserved citing and repeating here, simply because the site name lends it credibility as the Bernie Goetz version.  I think it properly follows Sequence of shots as its own section, Sequence of shots per Goetz's web site.  I'll work on introducing it later on today and will also remove the added repetition of the Cabey-was-shot-twice-theory that's already explained and debunked further on in the article.  --CliffC (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Does anyone agree that the changes suggested in the above paragraph are desirable? In my opinion this article was "almost there" and close to WP:GA status, but now seems headed downhill with unregistered users making uncited changes.  If the unregistered users claiming to be Goetz really are him, that's an obvious conflict of interest and his contributions should be limited to the talk page.  --CliffC (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the http://www.berniegoetz.net/ website, mentioned above and described in the External links section as "Personal site of Bernie Goetz"&mdash;NO, the site name alone does not lend the site any shred of credibility as "the Bernie Goetz version". The site as it currently appears describes itself as presenting "Issues from the unsuccessful 2005 Public Advocate race". FWIW, the berniegoetz.net domain name appears to have been registered with Godaddy.com by a person located in Bellows Falls, Vermont (see Whois for more info). Except for its header ("Bernie Goetz for public Advocate 2005"), the site doesn't appear to mention Bernie Goetz on its main page. A version of the site archived on 2005-05-26 is headed "Bernie Goetz for Mayor", shows a photo which appears to be of this article's subject person, and contains the notice "NOTICE! Bernie might not run in the 2005 mayor's race and might run for Public Advocate instead." (which appears to be what has happened). Some of this might be relevant to this article, particularly to the final paragraph above the References section.


 * Regarding whether the material at http://www.bernieformayor.com/bioletters.html can be used in this article or in support of assertions in this article, FWICS, if we are satisfied that this material was written by the subject person, the policy points presented at SPS would apply. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * <> I think its important to leave it. Most people are familiar with this version so its important to debunk it right in the beginning. Also that way we won't have newbees who "discover" Cabey was "shot twice" form various  sources continually re-editing the article. Obviously only one  version is correct and I'm happy to let time be the judge, but all 3 versions should be clearly presented AT THIS TIME  until its all ironed out, which could take a few years. Also note there are a few people who for reasons best known to themselves try to suppress facts from coming out, just typical corruption I guess. They wouldn't like the article  explaining things. To whoever is unhappy about BernieGoetz.net being my site, my nephew  Jordan Weinstein, might have registered it for me. Do some more checking so you know what you're talking about. Or check the Voter Guide and see it refers to BernieGoetz.net - Bernie Goetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.38.23 (talk • contribs)


 * 172.xxx.xxx.xxx, please properly format and sign your talk page edits, it is tiresome to repair them. The version of the shooting posted at www.berniegoetz.new has ZERO standing as a Wikipedia reliable source. I remain willing to introduce the subject with something like Web site www.berniegoetz.net offers a different version and summarize what it says in one place in the article. We don't do independent research to establish that you are who you say you are, or that the site is controlled by Goetz.  Material from that site and uncited material from anonymous editors doesn't belong sprinkled about here and there in the article.  As to your idea of repeating the false assumption that Cabey was shot twice so that newbies are less likely to disturb the article, newbies can easily be policed, I'm more concerned with recent edits that have left the shootings section a mess of confusion and repetition.  If Goetz gets his desired second act with the New York press, giving interviews and perhaps some sort of reenactment near the anniversary date of the shootings, mainstream media coverage of those events would have standing to be cited here.  --CliffC (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You know Cliff, if you're going to go back to that level of stupidity I'm thinking of withdrawing my apology. And the  original idea to present different versions was your idea, and it was a good and even brilliant idea. Instead of the article stating Cabey was shot twice is right, or Wachtler's version is right, or Bernie  Goetz  is right, why not present all 3 versions. Intelligent legal minds will be able to sort out the facts if they have access to the facts. Remember that many people (probably the majority) come to this article thinking Cabey was shot twice, and their reaction will be  to dismiss different sequences  unless their preconceived ideas are addressed first. The real political hot potato in having the brief Cabey-shot-twice sequence first, and then unceremoniously debunking it, is that some might want that sequence explained further, which leads to the conclusion of media manipulation of the American free press. Remember that the Cabey-shot-twice sequence was the cause of a  lot of wasted public legal analysis, and more importantly  was the  cause  of a lot of racial resentment. Think about that. For now having all 3 versions shows the best that Wikipedia is capable of, and that a possibly corrupted press does not have a monopoly on defining reality. I don't like using harsh words with you and think most of your research and contributions to the article are remarkable. You have rare talent and hopefully will go on to great things. Your idea of the article presenting different versions can do what many thought impossible, that is clearing up confusion on the shooting details. I disagree with your version but at least it establishes all shots were fired quickly and Cabey was shot once. BTW, if there is one version people want to hear, its mine. I've already had positive feedback on the changes presenting all versions. - BG