where did Goetz go wrong?
Clayton...@optilink.optilink.dsccc.com
did something terribly wrong. I have been mulling over the
accounts of the events and of the civil trial, and I am trying to
understand the reasoning involved. I've put together a list of
errors that Mr. Goetz made that might explain the size of the
verdict, especially since Mr. Cabey told a reporter after the
shooting that Mr. Cabey and friends were, indeed, preparing to
rob Goetz at the time he shot them.
1. Goetz didn't leave New York City the first time he was robbed.
He should have.
2. Goetz didn't leave New York City the second time he was robbed.
In that robbery, he complied with the demands of the robbers, and
was thrown through a plate glass window. He should have left
NYC.
3. As a result of the second robbery, Goetz vented his rage in a
racist manner at a community meeting about being the victim of a
crime. This is not an uncommon reaction. I used to work with
someone who, after a very brutal home invasion/rape/robbery/torture
became (by his own admission) irrationally racist. Goetz should
have kept his mouth shut. Racist rage at being victimized is
only considered acceptable for non-whites.
4. Goetz, when confronted with the robbery attempt, should have
followed the principle enunciated by Texas politician Clayton
Williams, "Lay back and enjoy it." Certainly, Goetz's dignity
and safety, and that of all other decent New Yorkers, wasn't
worth $43 million.
5. Goetz should not have used such an inadequate caliber. Cabey
wouldn't be in a wheelchair today.
6. Goetz shouldn't have been born white; then the racial polarization
of New York City wouldn't have guaranteed that a robber gets
rewarded for his crime. (A similar incident a few years before
with the races of the victim and attackers reversed never got
beyond the first grand jury's refusal to indict.)
7. Goetz shouldn't have said anything before shooting Cabey the
second time.
8. Goetz shouldn't have come forward after going into hiding.
Anyone who thought that the New York City criminal justice
system would allow a victim to defend himself is obviously a fool.
Good, now that I have vented my spleen, here's a substantial
point: Why should a person who commits a violent felony have
ANY basis for recovering damages from the victim? Until Cabey
et. al. chose to break the law by attempting to rob Goetz,
they were perfectly safe. It was the actions of Cabey et. al.
that caused the problem.
Jim De Arras
...
> point: Why should a person who commits a violent felony have
> ANY basis for recovering damages from the victim? Until Cabey
> et. al. chose to break the law by attempting to rob Goetz,
> they were perfectly safe. It was the actions of Cabey et. al.
> that caused the problem.
No, the gun itself is more evil than any actions of man. It's presense
overpowers all other balances of good and evil.
Jim "only half kidding" DeArras