Conference back40::soapbox

    
      Since we have virtual justice, it seems appropriate to award
     virtual money.
    
      bb

    
    
    Bernie wasn't even in the court-room when the verdict was reached/read.
    
    He took the subway home...
    
    Maybe Blush can figure out how to extract anything more than misguided
    vengeance from him now...
    

    
    This topic is disgusting.  How can you applaud the fact that a jury
    awarded a criminal an obscene amount of money because he was injured
    while in the process of committing a crime?
    
    The mind boggles.
    

    
      It was obvious throughout that Goetz knew before the civil
     trial began that he would lose, and since he's broke and in
     debt, he didn't care.  So he just told the truth on the stand.
    
      The jury, by the way, was 4 blacks and two Hispanics, and they
     took 4 1/2 hours, the last 4 1/4 of which was for show.
    
      bb

 So what is the perp going to do with all of this virtual money?

    re: .0
    
     It's too bad mr. bill didn't take the time out from his busy schedule
    to give us his full impressions of the issues, the trial, and the
    verdict.

| So what is the perp going to do with all of this virtual money?
    
    According to Bernie, pay the lawyers.
    
    BTW, the 5th led to Bernie walking away on most of the criminal
    charges.  (And I say thank god for the 5th.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    Discuss the issues of this trial?
    
    Nah, you don't want to talk about the issues of this trial.
    
    You want to blandly blame "society" for the crime.  Following your
    clear position where you blame the victim, I can only conclude....
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    <-- He was a victim of his own actions, Mr. Bill.  If he hadn't tried
    to mug Goetz, he would not have been shot.  

    
    
    >Nah, you don't want to talk about the issues of this trial.
    
    Then why, pray tell, did you even start this note??
    

                       
    What I did, and I know people are gonna say this is the most horrible
    thing, and I admit, for those guys, all this time I wanted to, do, the
    worst possible that a human being could do.  That your, that I, that I
    was capable of doing.  I went back to the other, I spun and went back
    to the other two....  The guy who was standing up, or something like
    that, he was then sitting down.  I wasn't sure if I had shot him
    before, because he just seemed O.K.  Now, I said I knopw this sounds,
    this is gonna sound vicious, and it is, I mean, how else can you
    describe it.  I said "You seem to be all right, here's another.""  Now
    you see what happens is, I was gonna shoot him anyway, I 'm sure, I had
    made up, I mean, in my mind, that, I was gonna pull the trigger anyway,
    but he jerked his right arm, and on reflex he was shot instantly.
    
    								-mr. bill

    As I said in the News topic, the verdict was correct, but the total
    amount awarded in damages should have been $.01.
    
    Bob

    I am quite sure that this verdict will be appealled.  If so, I hope
    that the verdict will be overturned with a clear indication that no
    criminal will ever profit from their own criminal conduct.  Maybe, just
    maybe then we will start to reclaim our society from the human flotsam
    that preys on the rest of us.  Remember, Goetz did not seek out four
    young men minding their own business, but defended himself from four
    thugs who, at minimum, were attempting to extort money and possibly mug
    him.
    
    As a side note, I wonder what the verdict would have been if the jury
    had been made up of Goetz's peers?  Also, I wonder what they would have
    done if the perpetrator had been white?
    

We will now wait patiently while William tells us what behavior is appropriate
when lowlife scumsucking hoodlums with sharpened screwdrivers threaten you
on the subway train.

    
|   I am quite sure that this verdict will be appealled.
    
    Not that I would expect anybody to pay attention to the facts here,
    but....
    
    
    "Goetz's lawyer, Darnay Hoffman, said after the verdict that it was not
    unexpected, and that he had no plans to appeal."
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    I'm glad he defended himself, as is his right, and find it unfortunate
    that he was not skilled enough to finish the job with the first shot.
    
    Geotz continued to fire after the threat was neutralized. If he could
    not show in court that the threat still existed at the time he shot the
    final rounds then he should be found guilty.
    
    However, he was provoked, and the events were put in motion by the
    "defendant" who should bear the brunt of the responsibility of the
    outcome reguardless. $.01 sounds like the correct message to send, 
    along with some community service requirements; perhaps cleaning 
    up train stations :-)
    
    If the courts garnish his wages, how long will it take this guy to go
    underground?
    
    Doug.

    .16
    
    If, indeed, Goetz does not plan to appeal this, then so much more the
    shame.
    
    The underlying issue still remains.  Our judicial and police system is
    incapable of protecting the average citizen going about their daily
    activities.  Unless cases like this are thrown out of court before they
    even get going, or the perpetrators are held accountable for their
    crimes, there will be an increasing number of violent acts on both ends
    of the spectrum.  Punks and criminals will feel safer knowing that
    anyone who defends themselves will be tried as a criminal, and innocent
    people will begin to find it increasingly necessary to take violent
    action to protect themselves.
    
    This can be avoided by getting a judicial system that punishes the
    criminal and protects the victim
    

   
    
    >This can be avoided by getting a judicial system that punishes the
    >criminal and protects the victim
    
    At the point where the threat was neutralized, Goetz stopped being
    a victim, and the scum became a victim (of his own creation I might
    add). Twisted ain't it.
    
    

    
    I wonder how many bleeding-hearts are busting blood vessels, knowing
    that Bernie will never pay dime-1 of the 43 mil??
    

    Bernie Goetz had no fear that afternoon in the subway, and he was in no
    danger until he escaped down a subway tunnel after the shooting.
    (Third rails are not something to mess with.)
    
    In Bernie Goetz's world, the phrase "Give me five dollars" is license
    to murder.  There were no threats.  There were no sharpened
    screwdrivers brandished.  The moment a black teenager uttered the words
    "Give me five dollars" Bernie Goetz decided he would "murder them"
    (his words, not mine).
    
    Bernie Goetz stood up, and attempted to execute four black teenagers.
    Body shot, body shot, body shot, body shot, starting on his left,
    shooting clockwise.  Then he turned to the person who is now a *MAN*
    in a wheelchair, and decided to shoot him again.  Toying with the
    person who is now a *MAN* in a wheelchair, he said "You seem to be
    all right, here's another."  Body shot.
    
    
    This wasn't the first time such a thing happened.  When he was verbally
    harrassed by a homeless man, he pulled a gun on him and told him he
    deserved to die.  Why?  "Because he was acting like such a total
    asshole."
    
    
    What would I do in the same situation?  I can tell you what I *have*
    done.  I've had the courage (it doesn't take much) to *WALK* away
    from derranged and abusive homeless men.  I've had the courage
    (it doesn't take much) to refuse to give money to people who ask
    for it.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Money (see OJ) seems to buy a better defense, but the NRA only
    contributed $40k; wouldn't a million $'s or so been able to buy
    a real defense team that would have got him acquitted?

>We will now wait patiently while William tells us what behavior is appropriate
>when lowlife scumsucking hoodlums with sharpened screwdrivers threaten you
>on the subway train.


 Give them everything you have, plus promise to send them your paychecks
 for the next few weeks..and thank them for the opportunity to help them.




 Jim

    
       Right, not only give them all you have and send  your paychecks, let
    them rape you if they want, give them your address so they can do it
    again if they can't find any other victims......
    
    

>			Then he turned to the person who is now a *MAN*
>    in a wheelchair, and decided to shoot him again.  Toying with the
>    person who is now a *MAN* in a wheelchair

Well, I'm sure this was for my benefit, so I'll simply repeat what I told
Lunchsack, Bill - There ain't any "man" in a wheelchair. He's a scumsucking
punk - nothing more.

>    What would I do in the same situation?  I can tell you what I *have*
>    done.  I've had the courage (it doesn't take much) to *WALK* away
>    from derranged and abusive homeless men.  I've had the courage
>    (it doesn't take much) to refuse to give money to people who ask
>    for it.
    
>   								-mr. bill
    
    
     Clap!!! Clap!!! Clap!!!
    
     Bravo!!!!!
    
     Blush's sure-fire cure for potential muggings!!!
    

    If Bernie was the cold blooded murder that your making a false
    statement to. He WOULD HAVE shot them in the head. And thought nothing
    of it. And what of the kids who do blow away adults for $5.00? What
    happens to them? The go to juvi court system. Go to some dorky YDC,
    Youth Development Center, and then Walk!! Talk about getting away with
    murder. There is a kid in Rodchester NH who is aspiring to become a
    carrier criminal. In deps, he made statement that if he goes to the big
    house, he will ge three squares a day, play basketball and lift
    weights. Hells bells. I think that Bernie needed a slap in the face
    all right. But, I think that there is something wrong with this double
    jeperdy game of prosacutoin. What of the kids? Bet there was a record
    for petty criminal activity that the medial doesnt seem to want to make
    a hulla-ballo about here.
    
    

    
    > Bernie Goetz had no fear that afternoon in the subway, and he was in
    > no danger.
    
      Goetz had been mugged before, I thought.
      As such, and according to his lawyer, he was indeed in fear of harm.
      As for being in no danger, pure unsupportable supposition on your
      part and contradicted by the testimony of Jimmy Breslin who
      was told by Cabey in 1985 that he and his friends were about to rob
      Goetz.
    
      In my world, if I'm surrounded by 4 youths who state "Give me five
      dollars", I am in a very precarious situation and I would 
      be very very anxious, if not downright afraid.
      
      However, I applaud your courage in these situations.
    
    							Hank

>    What would I do in the same situation?  I can tell you what I *have*
>    done.  I've had the courage (it doesn't take much) to *WALK* away
>    from derranged and abusive homeless men.  I've had the courage
>    (it doesn't take much) to refuse to give money to people who ask
>    for it.

Groups of four?

    
    And besides, why should I have to move away? If I am sitting on a seat
    on the subway, I shoudl be left in peace. I would be very nervous on a
    subway if 4 'yoots' came up to me and demanded money. I, however, will
    not move away. I have the means and the will to make them move away.
    And if they don't, they would be the worse for it.
    
    ed

    Awarding $.01 is on the right track, but not enough!  The four punks
    originally wanted $5.00.  He should have been awarded $1.25.
    
    -- Jim

    re: Gerald                    
    
|Groups of four?
    
    Groups of three.
        
    re: ed
    
|   And besides, why should I have to move away? If I am sitting on a seat
|   on the subway, I shoudl be left in peace. I would be very nervous on a
|   subway if 4 'yoots' came up to me 
    
    Bernie Goetz wasn't nervous.  And 4 "yoots" didn't come up to him.  He
    came into the car, there were plenty of seats, and he *chose* his seat
    among four people you say would make you nervous.  (Bernie *chose*
    his seat to correct their mother's decision not to have abortions.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .21
    
    >This wasn't the first time such a thing happened.  When he was verbally
    >harrassed by a homeless man, he pulled a gun on him and told him he
    >deserved to die.  Why?  "Because he was acting like such a total
    >asshole."
    
    
    >What would I do in the same situation?  I can tell you what I *have*
    >done.  I've had the courage (it doesn't take much) to *WALK* away
    >from derranged and abusive homeless men.  I've had the courage
    >(it doesn't take much) to refuse to give money to people who ask
    >for it.
    
    In the real world, it's not always so simple.  A friend and co-worker
    had the following experience with a homeless man asking for money: 
    After politely refusing to give the man any money, he continued walking
    down the street to his car.  A few steps later, he 'sensed' something
    and as he turned, he held up his brief case.  That action possibly
    saved his life, as the brief case deflected a pipe wrench the homeless
    man was swinging at the back of his head.
    
    Bob

    
    re: .32
    
    > -< There was a predator on the subway that afternoon.... >-
    
    
     Only in Blush's mind...
    

    
    I'd like to know a little more about the four scum, excuse me, helpless
    children.
    
    Criminal records and such.  I've been searching the web, but not much
    luck.  Can anyone remind me of the names of the other two so I can do a
    library search?  I remember Darrell Cabey and Troy Canty.
     

    
    >Goetz's victims claimed they were panhandling although it was later
    >revealed that they were carrying sharpened screw drivers. Cabey was facing 
    >robbery charges at the time of the shooting and the other three men have 
    >been convicted of crimes since the incident. 
    
    Victims.
    
    

|   I'd like to know a little more about the four scum, excuse me, helpless
|   children.
|    
|   Criminal records and such.
    
    Troy Canty, Barry Allen, James Ranseur, Darrell Cabey.
    
    I understand such "research" historically has been quite fruitful in
    rape cases as well.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Thank you for the names.

    >I understand such "research" historically has been quite fruitful in
    >rape cases as well.
     
    Usually rape victims are not in the middle of committing crimes when
    they are raped.  They truly ARE victims.  Committing a crime kind of
    takes you out of the 'victim' category.
    
    

    
    Hmmmmm.. what would I do if accosted by four "victims"??
    
    
    Seven little words..
    
    
    "Walk away now and you will live."

    Mr. Bill:
    
    It sounds like from what you've stated about Goetz being a bumb
    oriface, he apparently didn't know how to use a gun with common sense.
    
    For years now we have had our justice system weakened and prostituted
    by the likes of a Mario Cuomo or a Michael Dukakis.  The court
    appointees of recent years have been substandard.  We elected these
    types of people who in turn appointed incompetent judges.  The cynicism
    you see here is a result of poor thinking.  We have nobody to blame for
    this cynicism but ourselves.
    
    -Jack 

re .37:

From what I've heard, and also from personal experience, asking for some
small sum of money is a common prelude to a mugging.

    
    From memory
    
    Crocodile Dundee movie
    
    "victim": Hey Man.. you got a light?
    
    Croc: No.... don't smoke...
    
    "victim": (pulling out a knife) All right man, give me all your money...
    
    She: I think we should do as he says... He's got a knife..
    
    Croc: You call that a knife? This is a knife!!
    
    (Swish! Swish! Swish! and the "victim" has the mark of Zorro on his 
    jacket. The "victim" then takes off before he gets a chance to sue.)

    
    Next we'll be treated to screenplay's staring Michael Douglas.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    (And Marsdens still having trouble explaining the appostrophe thing.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	re: .46
    
    	and in mr. bill's fantasy world, everyone can just say no.
    
    jim

    
    re: .46
    
    > The fantasy world of Krawiecki
    
    Vs. the fantasy world of Blush, where every possible mugging is averted
    by walking away??
    
     Save your breath... I know it was what *YOU* did, but anecdotes can
    have their fantasy aspect too...wot?
    

    
    
    Hmmmmm...
    
    If there were more of a struggle on that subway car, and everyone died 
    there because of it, would they all have been victims?
    
    
     Then, who would have sued whom??

What if Colin Ferguson had been on that train?

    No, everyone can not just say no.
    
    But for god's sake, I've run across hundreds and hundreds of people
    asking me for money, I have been verbally abused by scores of them,
    and not mugged by any of them.
    
    
    You are *NOT* justified in preventing a *POTENTIAL* mugging with lethal
    force.  PERIOD.  Just because there *are* deranged homeless men who
    will break a skull does not mean that you should conclude that this
    particular one *WILL* break your skull open and shoot him dead!
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    .19
    
    The threat to Goetz could only be determined by the victim, who was
    Goetz.  He may have reacted differently than you or I might, but that
    still doesn't mean that he felt he was safe.
    
    Also, this was not the first time that Goetz was mugged and robbed.  I
    beleive he acted appropriately based on the circumstances and his
    personal experience.
    
    Poor Mr. Caby was on the streets awaiting trial for a similar mugging
    for which the charges were dropped after he was put in a wheelchair.  I
    think that was a mistake by the prosecution.  Perhaps if this scum was
    tried for his prior crime he might not have been able to claim
    "innocense".
    

    Bernie should file a suit against the city of New Yawk for knowling,
    doing little about it, having a such a hostlie enviorment as riding the
    subway. As in, what of the police riding a subway? There are police
    riding bikes, at public schools, of course at the local Dunkin Donuts.
    Everyone knows that if you ride the subway your chances are greaten for
    getting robbed, murdered, or raped by some poor deprived hood.
    
    Why not get Bernie and the host of thousands together for a big class
    act against the city? They are doing such things against the tabacco
    companies.:)
    
    

 ZZ   Bernie should file a suit against the city of New Yawk for knowling,
    
    Question...is knowling slang for giving somebody a hickey???

    
    
>   <<< Note 711.52 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
    
>    You are *NOT* justified in preventing a *POTENTIAL* mugging with lethal
>    force.  PERIOD.  Just because there *are* deranged homeless men who
>    will break a skull does not mean that you should conclude that this
>    particular one *WILL* break your skull open and shoot him dead!
    
    	I agree. I have said before that Goetz is no hero and he never
    should have shot those kids since they were running away from him. BUT,
    awarding that scum-bag punk $40~mil is ridiculous. I'm sure that
    sharpened screwdriver in his pocket was just for picking his teeth with.
    I'm also fairly certain that Goetz knew he wouldn't be left alone if he
    refused to give them money.  
    
    	Four 'yoots', all with priors, all armed tell Goetz they want
    money. Was he right to shoot them? No. Was he right to feel threatened?
    I think so. Do any of them deserve compensation? I think not.
    
    jim
       

    I'm telling ya...there is some prime property to lease in Somalia
    and other ghastly areas with low lease payments.  

    
    	Jack, I'm sure there are a few people in here that would be
    	willing to help you pack your suitcase.
    

Bernie heard "gimme $5.00".  Shame he reacted before the "...for the Police 
Athletic League".  Next time them bastards come to my door I'm nukin' 'em.

And, hey!  The Constitution lives!  After all, he gets to keep his gun(s), 
right?

    
    
    	Yo' workbench (Oh lordy), you should take that bag with the glue in
    it off yer head and get a breath of fresh air now and then.
    
    
    

Sorry... just so you know to whose head the barrels should be aimed, .59 was 
yers trooly...

    
    Steve Opper....
    
    "I am a sunflower...bright and true.  I like to do good deeds for you.
     Would you like to buy some cookies?"
    
    OH....You were talking about collecting for the Police Athletic League.
    
    Nevermind!

.. then how is it that the guy who shot a Japanese exchange student was let
go without any punishment ..?

	..strange justice system !

-Jk

     re .32
    
    
  >  Bernie Goetz wasn't nervous.  And 4 "yoots" didn't come up to him.  He
  >  came into the car, there were plenty of seats, and he *chose* his seat
  >  among four people you say would make you nervous.  (Bernie *chose*
  >  his seat to correct their mother's decision not to have abortions.)
    
    
    Thank you for correcting my error. I was under the mistaken impression
    that the four 'yoots' approached him with a request for money. I didn't
    realise that he got on the subway with the intention and knowledge that
    they four were already there.
    
    sorry
    
    ed

One of the greatest moments in TV history: On Taxi, Louie, expecting the grim 
reaper, opens the door to a girl scout...

I KNEW the real Brady bill shoulda been a law allowing us to use the whole 
bunch as target practice... I'll go for Marsha right between the eyes...

    
    	Ed, now YOU'RE making it sound like they had asked him for
    	money, got on the subway, and then Bernie followed them and
    	decided to shoot them as an afterthought.  I don't think
    	this is the case at all.
    

    
    	I'd like to get a shot at Marcia, also, but I wouldn't be
    	aiming between her eyes.
    

    Shawn liked Cindy and still does...pervert!

    But it rhymes with eyes, eh, Shawnnie?

    
	                /////
	               ( oo )                AAAAAhaaaaaa.....
	  _________oOO___<>___OOo__________

    Damn I missed!!!

    serves you right! 

    
    Re .66
    
    	Well I must be wrong. I THOUGHT that he shot them after they
    approached him, but Bill says he choose his seat among them. I frankly
    don't have the memory to remember that far back.
    
    ed

.67

Ohhhh... you thought I meant with a GUN!

    They, in Bernie's words, "played a dangerous game".  It's called
    see if this guy is scared enough to give us money.  It is a
    surprisingly effective game because many people will "donate" money
    because of what might happen.  It's the threatless threat.
    
    When someone offers to play this game with me, I don't play.
    
    Bernie does play.  By his own rules.
    
    He decided to execute four people because of what might happen.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Mr. Bill! You mean there are rules to getting robbed? Where are they?
    There are lots of hoods who are not playing by them!:)
    

    Mr. Bill! What of the fact that the Cabey has a prior? And if you rob
    enough folk you can buy your own gun?

    
    	Mr. Bill, you remind me of the "fire insurance scam" that in-
    	volves local thugs and business owners ... the owners paying
    	the thugs "protection money" so their businesses don't decide
    	to burst into flames in the near future.
    
    	And I guess you're OK with that, also.
    

re .75:

What if you decide not to play the game, and they make you play?

    
    	Mr. Bill, tell them that the priors have no effect on the
    	present/future actions of a reformed criminal.
    
    	But it is sort of strange that all [?] these guys have had
    	future convictions as well.
    

.77

I'm getting out of the way next time Marion Berry solicits ME for a 
contribution!

    
    
    The sequence of events....
    
    1 - Four youths sitting in the end of a subway car, two on one side,
    	two on the other.
    2 - Door opens, Goetz enters
    3 - Plenty of empty seats in the train, Goetz, [excercizing "street
    	smarts"] sits with them.
    4 - One youth asks "how are you doing?"
    5 - Goetz, [excercizing street smarts], answers "fine" - not taken by
    	Bernie as a threat.
    6 - After leaving 14th street station, two youths get up and move
    	to the door.
    7 - Goetz, [excercizing street smarts], demands "what do you want?"
    8 - Canty demands "Give me five dollars."  He is smiling.  Goetz
    	still doesn't feel a threat, but doesn't like their body
    	language.  (I could point out that their body language
    	was probably skin deep, but....)
    9 - Goetz decides to kill them.  He gets up and pulls his gun.
    10- According to Goetz, Canty backs away, puts hand near his pocket.
    	Goetz does not feel threatened.
    11- Goetz - bang, bang, bang, bang.
    12- Goetz goes back, says "you don't look so bad, here's another"
    13- Goetz bang.
    13- Goetz checks on two women who fainted.
    14- Goetz has a conversation with the conductor
    15- Goetz exits through end door, into the tunnel, escapes at
    	Chambers Street subway station.
    
    								-mr. bill
                                          

    .81 I hope you do, and while your at it. Ask him if there are any rule
    books for getting robbed.:) Mr. Bill and I wanna know what the rules
    are.:)
    

    
    
    	
>    They, in Bernie's words, "played a dangerous game".  It's called
>    see if this guy is scared enough to give us money.  It is a
>    surprisingly effective game because many people will "donate" money
>    because of what might happen.  It's the threatless threat.
    
    	It's called extortion....and it's not always threatless. 
    
    	I feel no sympathy for these yoots. They chose to play their stupid
    "game".  It's like playing chicken; 99% of the time, both of you veer
    off...just watch out for the 1% of the population that won't swerve.
    
    
    jim

    As near as I can tell, this is the liberal's liberal's position:
    
     It's a good thing to disarm law abiding citizens in general.
    
     If you are accosted by street punks demanding money, Just Say No.
    
     If they physically attack you, you may not use deadly force to defend
    yourself unless you are actually killed.
    
     If you are actually killed, no one else may kill the perps because we
    don't believe in capital punishment.
    
     Sounds to me like this works out to be Just Say No and hope for the
    best. And if the worst happens, oh, well. It's far better that a
    thousand innocents should be victimized than one punk should discover a
    victim that is capable of not only fighting back, but actually
    prevailing.
    
     Personally, I think Bill should thank his lucky stars that he's only
    run into pretenders, and no real punks. But that's me. I know that I'm
    thankful that I've only run into pretenders.

.83

Rool numero uno...

Courtesy Spy Magazine, June 1996:

"A recently passed [Texas] anticrime law requires criminals to give their 
victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the 
nature of the crime to be committed."

    
      20 years ago, on a street in Boston, a man came up to me
     holding a straight razor and told me to give him my money.
    
      I gave it to him.  I have no idea what would have happened if
     I had just said no, or if I'd tried to resist.
    
      I reported it immediately at the local police station.  They had
     me fill out a form, thanked me, and I never heard from the cops
     again.
    
      The next year, I moved out of the city.  I haven't lived in a city
     since, and I never will.  It's never happened to me again.
    
      bb

    It's really a shame.  Cities are the hingepin of civilization and right
    now all the good people are leaving the cities and all the thugs are
    staying in the cities.

I'm a thug?

    He didn't say only thugs, Gerald.

True.  I'm not a good person?

    Good people in cities are becoming an extinct breed!!

I'm becoming extinct?  I suppose so.  Every day I get one day closer to death.

.85

THIS "liberal's liberal's" position:

The guilt or innocence of the "perps" is not at issue.  Goetz is lucky to be 
a free, albeit impovershed, man.  Defend yourself if you must.  But if, in 
the process, you, as well, break the law, suffer the consequences.

You won't catch me crying for any of the lot...

    
    	re the thug collecting anything from Goetz..
    
    	Bernie's income has dropped from approximately $100k/yr to $20k/yr.
    
    	The punk is eligible for 10% of Bernie's income for the next 20
    	years, even if he wins the lottery, for example.
    
    	The punk is sniffin' around because he heard Bernie has a $100k
    	inheritance coming to him.
    

    .86 Great rule! I could give them my fax number and they (the
    hoo-laaa-gin) could fax me their request for me to be at a
    pre-determined place. And bring what ever favorite curency or fedish of
    watchs, beepers, handbags, cel phones...:)
    
    O.K. Mr. Bill! They did not notify Bernie in advance by 24 hours.:)
    

    .95 Which all goes to show you that ther is truth to the joke about the
    differnce between lawyers and hookers. The hooker stops screwing you
    when your dead.:)
    

.86

Of course...

"In NYC, 'It is disorderly conduct for one man to greet another on the street 
by placing the end of his thumb against the tip of his nose, at the same time 
extending and wiggling the fingers of his hand.'"

Ibid.

Beware...

"[In Pennsylvania], any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward 
him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that 
blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass.  If the horses appear 
skittish, the motorist must take his car apart, piece by piece, and hide it 
under the nearest bushes."

Ibid, yet again.

>I'm not a good person?
    
    Maybe you're just slow. :-) He didn't say they'd already left.

                 
    
    
    	The first trial's ballastics proved the Goetz didn't shoot after
    	the guy was down. He fired five shots in rapid succession.
    
    	What Goetz's  thinks happened and what really happened was a trick
    	of his mind.
    
    	They came over to him. They surrounded him to intimidate him to get
        money. That is a threat. I believe if you initiate a situtation 
    	your responsible for what happens after. 
    	Goetz shouldn't have to act like a trained police officer just the
    	average Joe that can defend himself.
        	
        Two of these poor victims went on to a life of crime, one a rapist
    	and the other a burglar.
    
    	The third's location is unknown after he checked out of drug rehab.
    
    	All said N done. I believe the jury did not fail in this trial.
    	They didn't see the same evidence as the crimminal trial and Goetz
    	attitude was cocky. Maybe because he didn't feel like he could
    	win or had anything to lose.

    
      Sax unthugged.  I know other people who live in cities, including
     my sister, who's been robbed twice, in Seattle and in Cincinnatti,
     where she now lives.  She agrees with me about giving them the
     money.  It isn't worth it to resist, because you care and they don't.
     But she goes on living in them - she just likes cities.  But there
     just isn't the level of security you can get outside them, because
     there isn't a crowd for the thugs to disappear into.
    
      bb

.103

> What Goetz's  thinks happened and what really happened was a trick
> of his mind.

Just like you libberuls to cop an insanity plea...

I hope this clears up the matter, once and for all:

"[In Kentucky], it is illegal for a woman to appear in a bathing suit on a 
highway unless she is: escorted by at least two police officers; armed with a 
club; or lighter than 90 pounds or heavier than 200 pounds.  The ordinance 
also specifically exempts female horses from such restrictions."

Ibid one last time.

    I said this in note 14, I'll repeat it:
    
    Bernie Geotz had effectively defended himself when the yoots started
    running away. It was malicious intent when he shot them in the back,
    then again when they were down. Bernie Geotz is a vicious criminal, and
    should still be in prison.

    .98 Yes, this is not nice to to. When they should be using, instead,
    the raised clenched fist and the middle finger to greet each other. And
    Bernie didn't do that either!:)
    
    

> Bernie Geotz is a vicious criminal

Hardly.

    He isn't? What he did didn't involve malice and viciousness? First of
    all, his gun was illegal, so already he's a criminal. He shot these
    people in the back as they ran from him. That is not self-defense, it's
    attempted murder. He stood over the man and shot him again while he was
    down. All he had to do was display his illegal gun, and the yoots ran
    away. He was free to go home and watch "Happy Days" or the NY Yankees
    or whatever he wanted to do. He chose to open fire. He belongs in
    prison.

>>Bernie Geotz is a vicious criminal, and should still be in prison.


	And _you_ are a scary person.


Pat

     Z    But there
     Z    just isn't the level of security you can get outside them, because
     Z   there isn't a crowd for the thugs to disappear into.
    
    I think it's more than that.  Cities, particularly in the Northeast
    have been welfare magnets for quite a few years.  
    
    I think there ought to be a statue in each harbor that says, "Give us
    your wretched, your bumbs, your criminals, your thugs"  Because this is
    in essence what we have done!

    Why am I scary? I find it scary that a racist punk can shoot 4 people
    as they run from him and 'boxers come out in droves to show their
    support.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    YOU ARE SCARY PEOPLE!!!!!!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    YOU ALL ARE SCARY PEOPLE!!!!!

    A racist punk? Lunchbox you have been snorting some strange dust. Its
    racist for a black kid to rob a white person? Same logic your using to
    hold your ears apart from each other.:)
    
    

    Geotz's views on race and people of other races are well documented.
    He said at a neighborhood meeting that the best way to clean up the
    neighborhood was to get rid of the "n****rs and s**cks". This wasn't a
    racist crime on his part?

   there seems to be little denying that Bernie's a bigot with a
   scintilla of pent-up hostility, at least.

> He belongs in prison.

Well, the jury in his criminal case apparently disagreed with you, Lunchbag.

What distinguishes Bernie from a vicious criminal is the fact that didn't
"go out looking" for someone to bother and to shoot, unlike the scumsucking
punks he shot who tried to get money from him. Had they minded their own
business, as he was minding his, the chances are quite good that he would
have kept his weapon concealed.

No one has a "right" to force themselves on others and ask for a five-spot.
Bernie showed these four punks just how limited their rights were in that
area. I'm not about to defend his actions exactly, but I'm not going to
call him a vicious criminal because he chose to defend himself, either.

I was corrected offline, that the Japanese exchange student's parents were 
awarded a US$608,000 judgement against the shooter in a civil trial.

Thanks
-Jk

    Lunchbox, 
    
    What of rap music? There is that 'N' word used all the time in their
    lyrics. Are these black music artist racist? They also use the 'B'itch
    word and other inflamitory words. Yet, if I were to say these words in
    public, I can loose my job, I can be sue-ed for defermation of charater
    and other nasty things. I can also be beaten to a pulp if I say such a
    word in areas that play rap music. Bernie was a nerd with a gun, just
    like Robin Williams was in his 80's movie, "Surive", where he and
    Walter Mathues(sp) go head to head in a laugh with some guy who is the
    boogie man with a gun. Bernie got carried away with words, as your
    yoots got carried away with a screw driver and a lust to hunt for
    victums on subways. 
    
    Then there is a good case in point about some black guy who shot up an
    entire passanger train because he was doing too much medicated drugs.
    There is someone cold, he wasn't aproached by anyone on that train and
    asked if he had five on him. He had more than five rounds though.:(
    And worse, was his constant mouthing off that he was a victum of white
    racism. He could have gone to see his free lawyer, the NAACP, or
    someone. Instead he got on a train and shot people, working people....
    like us.
    
    

    
      Yesterday, I'm told, an MBTA passenger was arrested at JFK/UMASS
     station for beating another passenger with a plastic bat.
    
      bb

    .104
    
    Only one "t" in Cincinnati.  

    .110
    
    Mighty easy to judge him from behind your terminal screen.  I'd say
    things would look vastly different if you had been in his shoes at the
    time the "yoots" approached him.

    .114
    
    You need to get a grip.  There is a difference between recist speech
    and a racist crime.

    
    
    .105 was that a joke or did you miss the point?
    

    .123 Tell us the differnce? I would like to understand more.

    Lunchman is only representing one plausible scenario.  It is quite
    conceivable that Bernie was laying in wait and even precipitated the
    whole thing.  Now, this doesn't mean I am saying the yoots were little
    darlings innocent of intent themselves.  I believe it is quite possible
    Bernie put himself in harms way on purpose.  His actions were criminal
    and he was already tried for this.  The cat and mouse analogy used
    earlier works for me.  They were all playing the same game.  Bernie
    just chose to enable the victim can morph into the predator rule. 
    I think it has nothing to do with Bernie's racial attitude wither.  The
    punks happened to pick someone with a chip the size of Manhattan on
    their shoulder and ended up paying the consequences.  
    
    Brian

    re: .116
    
|   there seems to be little denying that Bernie's a bigot....
    
    There seems to be a lot of denying that Bernie's a bigot.  You surely
    expected no less from 'boxers?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
      Let's see.  Case A : guy beats other guy with tire tool.  Case B :
     guy beats other guy with tire tool, racially motivated.
    
      In the USA, this is a crucial distinction.  In the latter case,
     the guy can be tried twice - once for beating the guy (local), once
     for violating his civil rights (federal).  All the lawyers get
     twice as much money from the taxpayers.
    
      I think the recognition algorithm has several complex factors - the
     races of the two, their speech, their life histories, their club
     memberships, the current level of racial tension.  Given a dozen
     guys of various races beating a dozen other guys of various races
     with tire tools, reasonable observers might disagree.
    
      bb

    I think Bernie's a bogot, er bigot.  It doesn't give anyone else the
    right to attack someone because of their beliefs.  Both sides were
    wrong and the jury should be ashamed awarding $43Million to some hoods
    looking for "action" who got caught playing their game.

.124

What point?  You said that Bernie's own recollection of the events cannot be 
trusted.  Whose, then?

If the "perps" were exonerated upon the same defense, methinks you'd be the 
first to hoot about wiggly defense strategies.

    .127 
    
    >There seems to be a lot of denying that Bernie's a bigot. You surely
    >expected no less from 'boxers?
    
    Are you saying something here Mr. Bill? And if we speak up against the
    lyrics of rap music, are we infringing upon the rights of the aritst?
    Are we being racist when whites us these naughty words. And what if your
    black and have a rap song, it can be played on MTV and our children can
    learn that there exist a double standard. 
    

    
    
    
    .130 I'd rather make judgements on physical evidence anyday.
    
    

    Bernie a bigot?  Intolerant of being victimized by scum sucking thugs, no
    doubt.
    
    --Doug C.

    
    Well, if you are going to trust lies about the physical evidence, maybe
    folks out there ought to get their stories straight.  Curtis Sliwa says
    Goetz only fired four shots.  According to Curtis, when Goetz went back
    and said "you seem to be all right, here's another" he pulled the
    trigger and it went "click."
    
    								-mr. bill

.134

I'm waiting for the movie to make MY final judgement...

    Z    According to Curtis, when Goetz went back
    Z    and said "you seem to be all right, here's another" he pulled the
    Z    trigger and it went "click."
    
    Non Sequitor.  This incident isn't supported as evidence of bigotry.
    
    George, I took a Valuing Differences class here at DEC.  We had a
    discussion regarding the tolerance of words in rap music.  While the
    person in the class found it to be undignified, it is still acceptable
    for one of a particular race to make pejorative (right Di?) remarks
    about their own people but it isn't okay for anybody else to.  In
    short, referring to women of their own race as hoe's and bitches isn't
    considered goshe in the African American community...to the singers
    anyway.
    
    -Jack 

    
    
    
    .134
    
    
    Funny, a former jury man said there was two holes in the coat of the
    victim even if only one bullet actually hit him.
    
    
    

.137

The magic replicating bullet theory!

    I wonder if bigotry entered into the white truck driver who was dragged
    from his truck and beaten over the head with a brick on nationalized
    tee-vee coverage.... And there was the dancing of joy when the brick
    shattered over his head and blood flowed from the wound like a
    fountain.
    
    I wonder if the train shooter will get to go to a civil trial and sue'ed 
    like Bernie in ten years? 
     

    >I wonder if bigotry entered into the white truck driver who was dragged
    >from his truck and beaten over the head with a brick on nationalized
    >tee-vee coverage.... 
    
     Of course not. Everyone knows only white people can be rassist.

    .125
    
    Is it a crime to say "I hate white people" ?  It is definitely racist
    speech.
    
    It is a crime, however, to act out on that hatred.  I hesitate to put
    a crime based on racism over any other stupid criminal act by law,
    however.  It opens a big can o' worms (yet we are doing this very
    thing).
    
    I fail to see the difference between the following two crimes:
    
a)  Man shoots someone because he does not like them (they are of the same
    race).
    
b)  Man shoots someone because he does not like their color.
    
    They are both stupid acts, and are both assault with a deadly
    weapon.  Both should be punished equally.
    
    
    -steve

.141

Okay, Bernie shot these guys because he didn't like them.  Feel better now?

    Yes...thank you and please stop jumping to conclusions to further your
    pet ideologies.

.143

Uhmmm, erhh, huh?

    STOP inferring he shot these guys because of their race.  

    jack's so forceful.  

    news reports of Bernie's bigoted statements apparently haven't
    reached some people in here.  cave dwellers, maybe.

    i'm waiting for jack's forceful response.

.145

Okay!  'Cept I didn't say that...  I'm guessing his attorneys weren't real 
thrilled when he used his attitude as part of his defense, but I don't 
believe that his judgement had anything to do with bias - 'twas based on the 
simple reality that he shot indiscriminately, with malice, and without 
remorse.

Glad we now agree on something!

    Okay then.  
    
    Actually everybody, Steve and I are bosom buddies!

>    i'm waiting for jack's forceful response.

	yes, though i was actually reacting to notes farther back
	in the string - such as mr. campbell's.

    Are you saying I'm a man's man?!

Bosom Buddies?  Didn't those guys dress like women?  What are you trying to 
say, Jack?

    I'm asking if you can get me a job in your department!

Women's ready-to-wear?

    I get the feeling that his bigoted statements are being creatively
    interpreted/dismissed in order to further an agenda. This is stupid.
    
    Bernard Goetz is no hero. He's a somewhat unsavory character who
    happened to strike a blow for potential crime victims at a time when
    crime victims were getting the short shrift (not much has changed
    here.) In people's zeal to agree with the message Goetz sent, that we
    the people aren't going to sit idly by while we are being routinely
    victimized both by a growing criminal element and a system which is
    ignorant, uncoordinated, uncompassionate and indifferent to the plight
    of the law-abiding.
    
    Goetz contribution to society was that he brought to the fore the
    results of years of ignoring the crime problem. People can only tolerate
    victimization for so long before they fight back. Unfortunately, by the
    time people reach the breaking point, they are past the point of
    rationality. They react viscerally, emotionally, and being in their
    path when they break is a bad thing. That the particular people that
    got in Goetz' way happened to be punks is perhaps happenstance as much
    as anything. It could just as easily have been other law abiding
    citizens who had the misfortune of looking different than Goetz, or
    perhaps more to the point, looked like previous assailants of Goetz.
    
    Cases like this are pretty much lose-lose. When Goetz was originally
    brought up on charges, the jury had to choose between sending a message
    that defending yourself against attackers was verboten, or that white
    on black racism & violence is tolerable to white juries. Neither
    message is a particularly good one, but in essence, that's what it
    boiled down to. 
    
    Apologists for the criminal element wail and moan about how horrible it
    was that Goetz fought back without ever addressing the reasons he did
    so. How they can see the impact of societal factors on the behavior of
    criminals but not the impact of society's failure to address violent
    crime on victims who fight back is beyond me, at least in an objective
    sense. Their myopia makes perfect sense when politics is taken into
    account. I also note the myopia of people with whom I share a portion
    of my political beliefs, who seem as prepared to dismiss Goetz' poor
    behavior as quickly as those who dismissed that of the Reginald Denny
    assailants.
    
    It's highly unfortunate that the participants in the incident had to
    have the demographics that they did- the racial angle sets so many
    knees to jerking that the root issues become obscured. It would have
    been far better had the participants shared common ancestry, or all
    been either whites or minorities. At least then we could have focused
    on the deeper issues.
    
    Personally, I don't put much stock in William's pious "blame the
    victim" mantra. In my book, a criminal that gets cut off at the pass
    isn't much of a victim. I suppose he'd have preferred that Goetz have
    taken a few sharpened screwdrivers to vital organs before saying "No."
    Then, perhaps, he'd have been allowed to run away (assuming the "boys"
    were done "playing" with him.)
    
    I note that the "victims" of Goetz' violence were not deterred from
    their life of crime. Except Cabey, whose mobility poses a problem. His
    buddies have enjoyed prison time as a result of continuing their life
    ambition to be full fledged members of the criminal element.
    Undoubtedly they've just been misunderstood.
    
    So while I don't shed a tear for the punks who got their due, I also
    can't hold Goetz in high esteem. He's no hero. He's a loose cannon.

re:.82 - mr. bill
>Plenty of empty seats in the train, Goetz, [excercizing "street
>smarts"] sits with them.

While I dislike the man, he had a right to sit where-ever a seat was available.

I dislike muggers about as much.

>    I get the feeling that his bigoted statements are being creatively
>    interpreted/dismissed in order to further an agenda. This is stupid.

    While I don't think his defending of himself against those thugs was as
    a result of bigotry necessarily, his bigotry _might_ have entered into
    the behavior that was his crime - namely, trying to finish them off.

    .141
    
    No, he shot them because he felt threatened.  Whether he liked them or
    not really isn't the issue (though some wish to make it so).

    Anyone from out side New York ever drive the Cross Brox Expressway?
    Ever think of carring a gun? Drive this place at odd hours and it will
    make a beliver out of you. I don't carry, but a friend of mine and self
    drove this at a odd hour, and in his gym bag, he was packing. And
    although licensed, still faced the rath of the anti gun foe of New
    York. I didn't know of the gun until later. He is a professional truck
    driver.
    
    

    
    >While I don't think his defending of himself against those thugs was as
    >a result of bigotry necessarily, his bigotry _might_ have entered into
    >the behavior that was his crime - namely, trying to finish them off.
    
    	So the "bigotry" wasn't the cause of the incident, but the
    	"bigotry" did increase the level of violence?
    
    	8^)
    

    
      
    
       I've driven certain streets in Worcester and have had certain
    individuals jump on my car, other streets you drive by people and they
    don't do that. I would think that sitting in a subway and a certain 
    individual asks for money, I think that the WAY the individual asks for
    the money can be also an indication of whether or not a person can feel
    'threatened' or potentially abused. Then, if your an idividual who's
    gotten 'fed' up with abuse, no telling what can happen.
    
       I was sitting at a meeting and the topic was 'domestic violence',
    the guy next to me thought it was all a big joke. When I tried to talk
    to him about how I didn't feel it was 'funny', he would rub my back and
    make remarks likd "Lighten up", "Don't believe everything I say." "I'm 
    just joking." Needless to say, maybe some would have thought he was
    JUST JOKING, but I don't think it's funny AT ALL. I'm dealing with a 
    situation, and have lived in a domestically violent home as a child, I
    don't take too kindly to people who joke about woman beating and child
    abuse like this guy was doing.....   So, what's my point? I think that
    BERNIE is FED up with CRIME! So, he figured (maybe he didn't consiously
    think of this) he'd teach a few a lesson on what could happen to THEM
    after violating others boundaries. 
    
        I wouldn't have shot the guy next to me (At least I hope not), but
    I surely plan on saying something to him the next time I see him. If
    he says one more thing about turning it on me and telling me to
    'lighten up' then I'm going to tell him off!  I didn't watch my father
    get sliced up with a razor blade by my brother and think THAT was
    funny!
    
        Rosie
          

    great note, Doc!

These just in...

"In Wichita, it is illegal to carry a concealed bean snapper."

"[In South Carolina], every citizen is obliged to carry his gun to church."

"North Andover [Massachusetts] prohibits its citizens from carrying 'space 
guns'."

"In Pocatello [Idaho], 'the carrying of concealed weapons is forbidden, 
unless same are exhibited to public view.'"

"Seattle residents may not carry concealed weapons longer than six feet."


Oh, and...

"In L.A., a man may legally beat his wife with a leather strap, as long as it 
is less than two inches wide, or she gives him permission to use a wider 
strap."


Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

    
    sounds like my Laws joke is making the rounds.

	I thought it would serve purposes well at this point if I indulged
	in a favorite boxer pastime...

>In short, referring to women of their own race as hoe's and bitches isn't
>considered goshe in the African American community...to the singers anyway.
	    ^^^^^

	"gauche".

	NNTTM.

	P.S. Let it not be said I never gave credit where credit was due...what
	is expressed after the ellipsis in the above quote is perhaps the most
	perceptive thought I've ever seen expressed by this individual.

    
        I heard that in Texas it's only legal to assault someone if
    you give that person 24 hours notice. 

    .167 Do you have to send them a registered letter? Or can I fax my
    assault message to my victum?:) 

    
    <------
    
    
    No... all you get is a registered letter from the perp's lawyer stating
    that if you resist, the perp will sue...

    SEE....BRANDON THINKS I'M SMART!!!!!!!

    Re. this string...
    
    I agree with Rosie. Bernie was fed up with being a victim. I also
    believe that once the... (what's that someone was calling them? Oh
    yeah, "yoots"), once the yoots started running Bernie should not have
    started shooting. This said, however...
    
    A person can only get pushed so far. We all have different levels of
    tolerance and different ways of reacting to things once those levels
    have been reached. What is really sad about this situation is that
    sometimes extremes must occur before anyone decides to do anything
    about it.
    
    It's kinda like that "dangerous intersection" thing. Unless there are a
    couple of deaths, nothing is usually done about it.
    
    I think this is what can be so frustrating about being a victim. I once
    had a roommate who told me that if I didn't give him $200, he was going
    to trash my house. I called the police. They said they couldn't do
    anything until *after* he trashed my house, and that my complaint was
    considered a perceived threat. The roommate moved out with the $200
    dollars in hand. That's when I stopped believing the police could
    protect me.
    
    I own a gun. I don't carry it with me. This is because I am unsure of
    whether I would be willing to use deadly force. I have friends that own
    and carry guns. They have made the decision that they would be willing
    to use deadly force, if they felt it was necessary.
    
    Bernie was carrying. Bernie was fed up. Bernie used deadly force. Was
    he right in what he did? I really don't know. I haven't walked in his
    shoes. I do, however, think it's tragic that people have to reach the
    point that they feel the only way to be safe is to take matters in
    their own hands.
    
    Do I blame them? Do I blame Bernie?
    
    No.
    
    I blame the criminals, who are making victims out of people every day. I
    blame law enforcement, who doesn't do anything about it until it is
    too late.

    No.  Brandon said that every once in awhile, you get lucky.  Think of
    the analogy where the monkey, if given enough time, may rewrite the
    works of Shakespeare.  Unlikely, but it could happen.  hth.  

    Gggrrrrrrrrrrr......

    I remember seeing a bumper sticker back after Bernie did his thing, 
    it read:
    
    "every criminal GOETZ what he deserves".

    
    just think if bernie missed that train.

    Or if the yoots left the screwdrivers at home.

    
    re .171
    
    	I also believe he went too far. And I believe the same as you  that
    he was fed up with his envirnment. 
    
    I too have a gun and do carry where lawful. I will use deadly force
    when I feel it necessary and know that I will live with the
    consequences. I also think that there will be people who will question
    my judgement. But that's OK. Hopefully I will still be able to debate
    the issue with them afterward.
    
    I don't blame Bernie for defending himself.
    
    ed

    
    	RE: .171 [Michelle]
    
    	"Yoots" is from "My Cousin Vinny".  It's NY slang for "youths".
    
    
    	And, IMO, there is no such thing as a dangerous intersection.
    	Only dangerous people.  Intersections don't kill people, people
    	kill people.
    

    
      Shawn !  Surely you've seen Massachusetts rotaries ?
    
      bb

    
    	RE: Brian
    
    	I believe the quote contains "One thousand monkeys".  So Jack
    	wouldn't have a chance.
    
    
    	RE: bb
    
    	Yes, and they have rules accompanying their use, to avoid ac-
    	cidents.  If only people would follow these rules, we'd be all
    	set.
    

    
    Dangerous intersections...
    
    	How about the intersection that the view of the other road is
    blocked so that you have to move into the intersection before you can
    see the oncoming traffic?
    
    ed

    .178 GReat flick! I never stopped laughing!!:)
    

    
    	RE: Ed
    
    	Then the oncoming car was going too fast, or the merging car
    	pulled out too far/fast.
    

    
    	So an accident never happens because of anything other than
    operator error or mechanical failure?
    ed

    
    Also, it doesn't take an actual accident to make the intersection
    dangerous.
    
    ed

    
    	RE: .184
    
    	NOW we're getting somewhere.  That's exactly what I mean, and
    	I doubt that many [if any] exceptions exist.
    
    	The only real "accidents" are caused by medical conditions
    	and/or mechanical failure.  In all other cases, some idiot
    	screwed up, and those are NOT accidents.
    

    
    re .187
    
    No matter how much I disagree with anyone, I would not like to see
    anyone in a situation like that.
    
    ed

    
    	Yeah, that didn't seem to read too well for me, either.
    

    
    	re .189
    
    	Hey, we agree :-).
    
    	I know I put my self in the position to have a situation like this
    happen to me because I carry a gun. My worst fear is that I will get
    into a situation that I believe that I must pull my gun.
    
    Someone asked me once if I had ever used my gun. I told them no, and
    that I hope I never do.
    
    ed

    Let's say Bernie was a member of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.
    Let's say his wife was African American. Let's say the yoots were
    white. He still had no right to shoot them in the back. Self defense is
    just that. It is using only force that is necessary. When Bernie pulled
    the gun and the yoots ran away, he had defended himself. He had no
    reason other than his own anger/hatred to shoot. 
    
    I said in note 14 that vigilante justice causes several problems for
    every one it solves. I cited the case in Florida where a child was
    going to play a joke on her father and hid in the closet when he came
    home from work. The father heard noises in the closet and got his
    shotgun, opened the door and fired on the first thing that moved. Had
    he gone next door to call the police, he wouldn't be living with the
    guilt of blowing his little girl's head off. I recognize that law
    enforcement leaves much to be desired as far as protecting people goes.
    But where do we draw the line? Who do we elect to shoot at? Car
    thieves, graffitti artists? Child molesters, credit card scam artists?
    What crime behooves a death sentence?
    
    
    lunchbox

    i'd take a shot at a child molester.

    
    Lunchie...
    
     You were not on the jury of his original, criminal trial.
    
     Be a good boy and tell us why they didn't convict him (except for the
    weapons charge).
    

    Lunchbox:
    
    U have very delicately touched upon the issue that has plagued mankind
    for ages.  What standrds are we to hold up to?  Is it right to put to
    death a convicted murder?  Is it right to cut the hands off a thief or
    catrate a rapist?  
    
    Welcome to Soapbox.

    Personally, I'd kill somebody that injured or threatened my family or
    myself. Perhaps I'd have done the same thing in Bernie's case, but I
    know that crimes committed in passion are not excusable. What would
    have happened if Bernie had accidentally picked off a pregnant woman or
    a child during his "self-defense"? It's not so cute anymore, eh?
    
    
    lunchbox

>>    	And, IMO, there is no such thing as a dangerous intersection.
>>    	Only dangerous people.  Intersections don't kill people, people
>>    	kill people.
  

	-): -): -): -):

Its like guns don't kill people... its only the people who own the guns....  

    pregnant women and children are a dime a dozen. /hth

    re: .191
    
    >white. He still had no right to shoot them in the back. Self defense is
    
    I agree.  However, after one of the 'yoots' admitted that their intent
    was to rob Bernie, I have very little sympathy for what happened to
    them.  That was why I said earlier that the verdict was correct, but
    that the damages awarded should have been $.01.
    
    >I said in note 14 that vigilante justice causes several problems for
    >every one it solves. I cited the case in Florida where a child was
    
    That is not what I would consider vigilante justice...that was plain
    stupidity on the father's part and to call it vigilante justice simply
    clouds the issues.  I feel you are trying to make an apples and oranges
    comparison.
    
    Bob
    
    

>    pregnant women and children are a dime a dozen. /hth

Especially pregnant children.

    If the yoots had minded their own business, yes, they would have
    emerged from their subway ride unscathed. But two wrongs don't make a
    right, to be cliche'. As a matter of fact, three lefts make a right,
    but that's way beyond the scope of this matter.

    I can see the hifgher moral issue presented to Lunchie a few notes back
    went right over his head.

    re- use of the "n-word" to describe African Americans.
    
    
    Somebody spoke of context and rappers using this word, and why did I
    write it as "n****rs" instead of just writing it,  blah blah blah.
    
    I have been taught to detest this word. I feel bad for blacks who use
    it, as I feel they have been brainwashed into this mode of thinking. I,
    for one, do not, will not use it, unless discussing a matter such as
    this while quoting somebody ignorant enough to use it. I don't even
    like to see the word written out, which is why I put it as I did.
    Besides, the mods have been upset at less, in the past.
    
    lunchbox

>								What would
>    have happened if Bernie had accidentally picked off a pregnant woman or
>    a child during his "self-defense"? It's not so cute anymore, eh?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Just because a bullet can acidentally kill the wrong target Bernie
shouldn't have defended himself?

How 'bout if I tell you Bernie checked for pregnant women and kids
before he opened fire? Does that make a difference?

[No - I don't have a clue if he did so. Do you have a clue as to whether
 or not any were present?]

    
    
    
    Mugging is a hard job...full of dangers. You know the risks before
    you take it up as a career...
    
    
    	This is a perfect example to me of the "Imperfect Self Defense" the
    	mendez brothers were trying to claim.

    Delbaso-
    
    But this wasn't self defense. Bernie had effectively ended the
    potential attack when he displayed the gun. Everything else was
    Bernie's own criminal rage coming out.

	Goetz was not necessarily out of harms way merely because the
	punks fled at the sight of his gun.

	They could just as easily have had accomplices working other
	cars on the same train, who could have been more heavily armed
	and brought to bear on their intended victim(s).

	On a travelling subway car, Goetz might have felt that he could
	not remove himself to a known safe environment, and that the best
	way to ensure his own personal safety was to disable those who were
	threatening him.

>    Besides, the mods have been upset at less, in the past.

    oh sure, blame it on us. ;>  what's this "upset" crapola? - we
    delete stuff that in our opinion violates policy.     

    anyways, if you were quoting Bernie, and he used objectionable
    language, it would be allowed if it was critical to conveying the
    substance of what he said.

    Lady Di-
    
    	Quoting directly wasn't necessary, as everybody got the meaning
    when I said "n****rs". I've been a good boy lately, anyway, haven't I?

>                      <<< Note 711.206 by EVER::GOODWIN >>>

>	and that the best
>	way to ensure his own personal safety was to disable those who were
>	threatening him.

	He did more than try to disable them.  That's the freakin' problem.

>                    <<< Note 711.208 by CSLALL::SECURITY >>>

>    	Quoting directly wasn't necessary, as everybody got the meaning
>    when I said "n****rs". 
	
	I know that, Lunch, and I would have done the same thing you
	did.  I just wanted you to know that it wouldn't have been a problem
	as far as conference policy is concerned.

    No offense taken. In fact, I think it builds good character to practice
    not using objectionable language. Thank you for calling my faults.
    
    
    luncbox

    lunchbox

    You knew what I meant.

>                    <<< Note 711.211 by CSLALL::SECURITY >>>

> Thank you for calling my faults.

	Eh?  Lunchbox, I just wanted you to know for future reference
	what the policy was!  That's all!  I wasn't "calling" your "faults".
	Sigh. ;>

    The gratitude was sincere, I tell you!!!! I meant, I didn't mean...you
    aren't the bad person... I just thought...you've caught me saying
    objectionable things and I...I mean I'll be good. I appreciate the
    conference policy. It's even better than...it's just a good policy.
    Really.

    you better be good!

Good whimpering, lunchbox.

    I practice!!!

    Well, that much is clear.

    Levesque-
    
    		I realized after I said that that I'd set somebody up
    nicely. Congrats on being an opportunist.
    
    
    lunchbox

Thank god that the subway wasn't headed into a dangerous intersection!

BTW, guns don't kill people, but bullets sure do a helluva lot of damage...

    So does my mother n law's cleaver!!!!!

June?

    
       I'd shoot all 3 legs of the child molester......

What about the female child molester?

    
    
    .0  Nope, no applause from me. This was a wrong verdict; the muggers
    chose to mug, Bernie chose to defend himself. Whether I LIKE Bernie as
    a person is moot.
    
    Frankly this case presents somewhat of a quandary for me... I do not
    own a firearm (except for a flare gun) and still believe that for me
    without any shooting/gunnery skill, having one would endanger ME
    even more. Having said that, at times I do wish that I had a weapon,
    (an effective one that is) when I accosted a thief (happened to be a 
    black adult) red-handed, carrying my outboard engine off the aftdeck.
    It was 3 am and I was alone with my guard-cat (Wellie woke me up). 
    As it turned out, this was a repeat visit; he had already stolen other 
    items on the foredeck prior. He had also cased the marina for a while 
    and of course knew of the tenants' coming and going. 
    
    Luckily he got caught cause he was stupid enough to leave his name
    and stake-out sheet in the pickup he had just stolen.
    
    Back to the 4 yoots - they deserve everything they got. Just like my
    perp would. Apparently my perp had his third strike. If convicted he'll
    be put away for life in Calif, which to me is also not so good since I
    and other Calif. taxpayers would have to pay for his room&board until
    he croaks.
                

>    Back to the 4 yoots - they deserve everything they got. Just like my
>    perp would. Apparently my perp had his third strike. If convicted he'll
>    be put away for life in Calif, which to me is also not so good since I
>    and other Calif. taxpayers would have to pay for his room&board until
>    he croaks.

Bet you wish you'd had used Jack's mummy-in-law's cleaver, eh?

-1

you'd had?  Uh oh... guess I'm a 'box lifer now...

> ... blah, blah, "n*****s", blah blah...

What a load of doots. Everyone knows what you mean, everyone knows they're
lazy and stupid, everybody knows the world WOULD be better off without them.
But all this PC BS over a word. Sure it's distasteful, but say what you
mean.
Nutters!
Nutters!
Nutters!

There. I feel better now.

    
    	Bruce, you've GOT to cut back on the caffeine.
    

    Apparently the bleeding-hearts just don't get it.  The four criminals
    lost all rights the moment they decided to accost a law-abiding
    citizen.  You can couch in any terms you want, but a citizen in this
    country has the God-given right to go about their business without
    being robbed, mugged, threatened or intimidated.
    
    These four punks violated the most basic social contract and paid the
    price.  If Goetz had gone looking for them, and they were law-abiding
    citizens minding their own business, then Goetz should go to prison. 
    that wasn't the case, and hopefully Goetz sent a message to all
    would-be crooks.  You will never know when you might go up against the
    wrong guy on the wrong day.  The jury verdict, which I beleive was
    racially prejudiced, sends the absolutely wrong message.
    
    Personally, I hope many more people will begin to strike back like
    Goetz did and help make this a safer country.
     

    
    re: .205
    
    >But this wasn't self defense. Bernie had effectively ended the
    >potential attack when he displayed the gun. Everything else was
    >Bernie's own criminal rage coming out.
    
    
    I'll ask you once again, Lunchie...
    
    What was the verdict reached by the original, criminal jury vs.
    Bernie?????
    

    Who is the law abiding citizen in question? Geotz was packing
    illegally.  I say, let the punishment fit the crime. To bother somebody
    for $5.00 does not warrant being put in a wheelchair for the rest of
    your life, even if it was under the threat of physical force. The
    threat was long gone when Geotz started shooting. This verdict may be
    racially motivated, which would offset the racially motivated verdict
    that cleared Geotz of all but the weapons charges.
    
    
    lunchbox

    RE-232
    
    The verdict, as I understand it, was not guilty for all but the weapons
    charges. Does this mean, in your opinion, that the person is immune to
    civil charges? OJ is completely off the hook, in your scenario.
    
    lunchbox

> The threat was long gone when Geotz started shooting.

"Long gone"? I think not, Lunchbag. We're talking about an incident that 
probably took less than two minutes in its entirety, given the known data
regarding the train in question and its stops, relative to the testimony.

> To bother somebody for $5.00 does not warrant being put in a wheelchair 
> for the rest of your life, even if it was under the threat of physical 
> force. 

What sort of crock of excrement is that? You feel that there should be 
principles in place which dictate a dollar limit that grants the right to 
retaliate? Or which define a valid "claim" sufficient to justify 
damage/liability?

Your mind works in some strange fashion that I find incomprehensible,
Lunchsack.

If I were accosted by some creep threatening me for a lousy _penny_, I'd
have no qualms about putting him out of his misery, given my ability to do
so. You just don't seem to be able to grasp this concept of people's rights 
to be left unharrassed. That's what this is all about. Not $5.

    hey lunchie, if they take $.01 from you and stab and kill you, you're
    dead. if they take $1,000,000.00 from you and stab and kill you, you're
    dead. 
    
    please explain your position on the $5.00's being important here. maybe
    you haven't noticed, but people like these scum place $.00 value on the
    human life. people have been being killed regularly for less than $5.00
    now for sometime. if you're going to argue a point you'd do better to
    leave the irrelevant out...
    
    Chip

    re: .157 by Nasua::Guillermo
    
|While I dislike the man, he had a right to sit where-ever a seat was available.
    
    Of course he had every right in the world to sit there.
    But it was still not street wise to sit there.
    
    One day, I had every right in the world to push two big young men out
    of the way to exit the downtown IRT 2.  I chose not to excercize such
    a right.  I got off at Chambers Street instead.
    
    Some here think that this makes me a "sheep."  Nah.  The far greater
    indignity is suffered by those here who can't imagine traveling in a
    city without their blankie -- oh, I'm sorry, their concealed weapon.
    The people here who wouldn't even get on a train because it might
    contain a few bo-bo heads.  They are the ones who plan their lives
    around their fear.
    
    
    Finally, I have the right to say many things in the 'box.  I'm also
    correctly criticized for not having the wisdom not to.
    
    								-mr. bill

       Goetz probably did that loser a favor when he shot him.  At least he
    is alive & not in jail and I bet he doesn't fool around on the subway
    anymore.
    -ss
    

    
    " Don't want to wind up in a wheel chair?"
      Then you better not shake em down for your fare"

RE: boxlunch:

   What makes you think this crime would have been limitted to $5 and 
   no assault? Are you taking the yoots word for it?  Should Bernie,
   or anyone in this situation beleive that after turing over $5, the
   encounter would end? 

RE: Mr. Bill,

 >   One day, I had every right in the world to push two big young men out
 >   of the way to exit the downtown IRT 2.  I chose not to excercize such
 >   a right.  I got off at Chambers Street instead.
 
 >   The people here who wouldn't even get on a train because it might
 >   contain a few bo-bo heads.  They are the ones who plan their lives
 >   around their fear.
 
 Did you not exit out of fear or courtesy ?

 Doug.

 >   One day, I had every right in the world to push two big young men out
 >   of the way to exit the downtown IRT 2.  I chose not to excercize such
 >   a right.  I got off at Chambers Street instead.
    
    How fortunate that you had the luxury of being able to go out of your
    way to avoid a messy confrontation.

    Yes, how fortunate. What would have been the out come if there was no
    option?

	I thought mr. bill's point was that there are ways of avoiding
	putting oneself in harm's way.  Was it more complicated than
	that?  Am I on drugs?

    .237
    
    Your response is a clear indication of how low this society has sunk. 
    No one should feel fear about riding ona subway or being ona street,
    etc.  The filthy scum that accost people every day of their lives are
    the problem, not the people who are going about their business.  Untill
    we, as a society, focus on that problem we will continue to see stupid
    verdicts like this one.
    
    When I was a kid I used to ride the bus and subway almost every day. 
    At no time did I ever feel any concern about my safety nor did anyone
    else.  No inappropriate behavior was tolerated on the public
    transportation system.  I can recall numerous instances when the bus
    driver or conductor would remove a passenger from the train or bus if
    they were misbehaving.  this was for a lot less than initimidating a
    passenger for money.  these were kids or adults who were being loud or
    rowdy and interfering with other passengers, or putting their feet on
    the seats, etc.  the buses and trains were clean and safe then, but in
    our more enlightened age we now believe that a citizen needs to
    understand that being threatened, harrassed, etc is part of their daily
    life.  This is wrong and goes a lot deeper than whether or not Goetz
    shot some punk that desparately deserved it.  If you think that he was
    wrong, then just what do you propose to insure that people can go
    safely about their business.  this was the case not that long ago, so
    it's not a pipe dream.
    

    >	I thought mr. bill's point was that there are ways of avoiding
    >	putting oneself in harm's way.  
    
     I certainly agree that there are ways to minimize the risk of
    making yourself a target for the various street thugs. There are some
    times, however, when simple existence is sufficient to set them off.
    What if the next station was far out of his way and he was in a time
    critical situation, for example. He can feed us personal anecdote after
    personal anecdote of escaping with his life intact, but it only takes
    once, and you don't actually have to DO anything to be victimized. So
    while I'd agree that he's been wise to avoid unnecessary confrontation,
    I'd also say he's been lucky that nobody's picked him for a dance
    partner against his will. As one who's been in the latter position more
    than once, I assure that being "street smart" isn't enough. I can only
    thank God that he saw fit to compensate my lack of stature with foot
    speed.

    
| Did you not exit out of fear or courtesy ?
    
    Courtesy.  Something that seems to be in short supply with people who
    see subhumans and scum all around them.
    
    								-mr. bill

   .245  yes, apparently mr. bill has been lucky - i think we've
	 established that.  but what does that have to do with whether
	 or not Bernie was purposely (or at least knowingly) putting
	 himself in a bad position?  

    
    .246
    
    your turn Andy

>    Courtesy.  Something that seems to be in short supply with people who
>    see subhumans and scum all around them.

Unbefreakinglievable, Bill.

    You can use whatever terms you chose, but the fact remains that anyone
    who would prey on someone is subhuman and scum.
    
    I can remember a little old lady who lived down the block from us who
    kept her home and lawn immaculate.  When kids would get out of hand and
    start running across her lawn or dump something, she would come out and
    chase them away with a broom.  Gee, I wonder what would happen if she
    were alive today and did that.  Some scumbag like Caby would blow her
    away or stab her with a sharpened screwdriver.
    
    Your philosophy has supported the decay in behavior, so don't complain
    when someone says thay are not going to take it any more.
    

    Poll time:
    
    How many of the contributors who assert that our urban areas are
    replete with decay and crime live in the suburbs?  I, for one,
    have always lived in the inner city, and, other than property crimes
    (RAMPANT in the suburbs), have NEVER been a victim.  Moreso, my friends
    and family have had common experiences.  
    
    Frankly, I stay outta the 'burbs cause of all the gun-totin' lunatics
    with attitudes roaming the streets.
    
     

    There is a belief among some that a person who is armed is less likely
    to avoid dangerous situations, and might go so far as to provoke an
    incident. I was told of such an incident that occured here in the
    Springs...
    
         It involved the Crips or the Bloods or both, stating that they
         were going to drive around with their headlights off (at night of
         course), and if anyone flashed them, they would start shooting.
         
         Well, a number of people who owned firearms decided that they too
         would drive around, and if they saw any car without headlights,
         they would flash them.
         
         In the end, nothing came of it, but what a blood bath it would
         have been if something had.
         
         I suppose it made good copy.
         
    The problem with the above incident is that it fosters the belief that
    armed people *do* run around, "prepared to fight", (read, actually
    hoping for a confrontation). In general, this is untrue. If I ever
    decided to start carrying a concealed (or unconcealed, for that matter)
    weapon, I would be more cautious about where I went. I would especially
    try and avoid situations that I felt could lead to a confrontation. I
    have friends who carry, and emphatically state that dangerous
    situations should be avoided if at all possible.
    
    However...
    
    There are those, and I've met them, who feel like a firearm gives them
    the license to do just about anything they damn well please, including
    walking right into situations that they would have otherwise avoided
    had they been unarmed.
    
    But...
    
    This whole thing isn't really about doing the "right" thing. The jury
    told us that when they handed out the "not guilty" verdict on Goetz.
    It's about people being sick and tired of being victimized.
    
    From the morality point of view, can we ever really put a price on
    human life? $5 or $5 billion dollars. In the end, it wasn't about money
    at all. It was about being victimized, yet again. It was about the
    straw that broke the camel's back.

    re: .250
    
    Oh, for god's sake.  You'd be shocked to find immaculate homes and
    lawns, kids running around, old ladies chasing them off when they
    get out of hand in *GASP* [time for a codeword] MATTAPAN.  You know
    what happens when an old lady does that?  The children say "sorry
    Mrs. Williams."
    
    Stay frightened wherever you are.  The rest of us will live our
    lives without fear.
    
    								-mr. bill

re .252:

That was an urban legend that spread like wildfire around a year or
so ago.  There wasn't any truth behind it.  The city mentioned
was typically whatever largish city was near the last resender,
in your case Colorado Springs.

	So do all/any of the people in here who so blithely wish death
	or whatever upon all the "scumsucking" punks roaming the earth 
	see no problem with Bernie Goetz going back to one of the men and
	saying, "You seem to be all right, here's another."? 
	Do his bigotry and vigilante attitude not scare anyone else?

    re: .255
    
>	So do all/any of the people in here who so blithely wish death
>	or whatever upon all the "scumsucking" punks roaming the earth 
>	see no problem with Bernie Goetz going back to one of the men and
>	saying, "You seem to be all right, here's another."? 
    
    Nice blanket statement there, Lady Di.  Care to define 'whatever'?
    
>	Do his bigotry and vigilante attitude not scare anyone else?
    
    Not since he is ~1500 miles away from me.  I have plenty of local
    bigots to worry about, including some elected officials.
    
    Bob
    
    

re: PENUTS::DDESMAISONS

>	I thought mr. bill's point was that there are ways of avoiding
>	putting oneself in harm's way.  Was it more complicated than
>	that? 

	No and yes. I think the problem here is one of degree. How far
	is one willing to go to avoid harms way. Sitting on the far
	side of the train? Not exiting at your stop? Not taking the train
	at all?  Baracading oneself in the house?

	The other side of the coin involves the reasons why people must be
	concerned with avoiding harms way and how society concentrates
	on the instances of harm without putting some thought as to why the
	harmful environment exists in the first place. (Free hint, it has to
	do with individual responsibility no longer being required behaviour
	by society and the application of the law).

	So, while Mr. Bill makes a good point, his application of it is
	up for critisism. 

>	 Am I on drugs?

	I don't know, but they have tests for that :-)


	Doug.
         

>   <<< Note 711.256 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "DCU Board of Directors Candidate" >>>
    
>    Nice blanket statement there, Lady Di.  Care to define 'whatever'?

    Oh, that's rich.  I included "or whatever" just so that it _wouldn't_
    sound like a blanket statement.  I don't think everyone wants them
    to die.  Fill in "whatever" however you like.  Permanent disability?
    Racking?  Life in prison?  

    
    	His point was that "whatever" could have been "eternal happi-
    	ness", which would satisfy the meaning of "whatever" even if
    	it didn't make much sense in context.
    

re: Mr. Bill,  Yes, I prove my point....

>| Did you not exit out of fear or courtesy ?
>    
>    Courtesy.  Something that seems to be in short supply with people who
>    see subhumans and scum all around them.
 
	What, you didn't want to disturb these fellows deep thoughts?
	Entering and exiting is what you do on a train. Should these
	fellows have provided the courtesy of an exit path?

	'Courtesy' as a reason for missing ones stop seems a tad difficult
	to believe, especially when combined with the emphasis on the large
	fellows blocking the doors.

	Bit that's just me ...

	People avoid harms way because people don't want to be harmed, 
        not because they want to be nice.

	Doug. 

    he's smarting because of the airplane thing.

   .257   maybe someone in here benefited from your "free hint", but
	  i didn't need it, thanks.

>	So, while Mr. Bill makes a good point, his application of it is
>	up for critisism. 

	  criticism.  his application of it?  what application was that?

    
    	I guess it would have been out of the question for Mr. Bill to
    	just say "Excuse me" and hope the guys made a path to the door
    	for him, right?
    

   .259  Yes, I understand what his point was, Shawn. ;>

    <--- microsoft office

>	Do his bigotry and vigilante attitude not scare anyone else?

	Not nearly as much as four yoots roaming the trains asking
	for money.

	The way I figure it, I have something to fear from the undisciplined
	yoots, and little to fear from Mr. Goetz (unless of course I try to
	shake him down).

	Doug.

><<< Note 711.266 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

>	Not nearly as much as four yoots roaming the trains asking
>	for money.

	But it doesn't matter whether one scares you more than the other.
	The point is that this is a case which has an element in it 
	that makes it unusual.  The four thugs didn't pick on just any old
	citizen - they picked on one Bernard Goetz, who comes with his
	own set of scary problems and perhaps a predisposition to kill.
	That makes it something of an anomaly, doesn't it?  The thugs
	were guilty of trying to rob him, and he was guilty of (and in his
	own words admitted to) vigilanteism.

.257

 > (Free hint, it has to do with individual responsibility no longer being
 >  required behaviour by society and the application of the law).

What utter tripe.  This Ronnie Raygun mentality is as passe' as junk bonds.  
I am aware of oodles of people with no sense of personal responsiblity who 
are compensated royally for it.  And no, they are not criminals in your 
maligned sense of the word.  They only commit crimes which wrest the life 
savings out of honest, hard-working, struggling, loyal individuals whose 
inability to keep up leads to the urban decay which you so decry.   

The real criminals?  Selfish, money-grubbing scum who scapegoat the poor and 
malign them with obscene generalizations.

    >The real criminals?

    And who are these real criminals; white people?

    --Doug C.

    
    >And who are these real criminals; white people?
    
    
    Ibid will now tell us...
    

|   	What, you didn't want to disturb these fellows deep thoughts?
|	Entering and exiting is what you do on a train. Should these
|	fellows have provided the courtesy of an exit path?
    
    Yes, in a perfect world, they should.
    
    The door was about to close.  I wanted to exit.
    They were blocking the door.  This is very rude, isn't it?
    
    
    Now I could:
    
    	1 - Just be a "total asshole" and push my way through them.
    	    Ah, but we do know that there there are those who roam
    	    the streets who think that someone who acts like "a total
    	    asshole" deserve to die.  But damnit, it's my freedom,
    	    it's my RIGHT!
    	2 - Say "excuse me."  When they didn't move, assume that they
    	    were being inconsiderate, and return the inconsiderate
    	    behavior by pushing my way through them.
    	3 - Say "excuse me."  When they didn't move, assume that they
            might not have noticed me, might not have heard me, and
    	    perhaps I just blew it and missed my stop.
    
    I chose 3.  The doors closed.
    
    This courteous approach led them to offer an appology for blocking
    the door.
    
    The three of us got off at Chambers Street.  They went up the stairs
    to the exit.  I crossed the platform to catch the next uptown local.
    
    (BTW, the difference between changing from the express to the
    local and 14th or Chambers was close to six of one, half a dozen
    of the other.  I wanted to get off at Canal and walk to Grand.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Di.
    
    >they picked on one Bernard Goetz, who comes with his
    >own set of scary problems and perhaps a predisposition to kill.
    
    True. But weren't these the result of a previous mugging and
    the failure of the system to properly address that?
    
    Not everyone is as strong and brave as bill, especially after they've
    been mugged or attacked. I have a hard time condemning someone if
    they don't act "perfectly" the second time around.

>	But it doesn't matter whether one scares you more than the other.

	It doesn't?

>	The point is that this is a case which has an element in it 
>	that makes it unusual.  The four thugs didn't pick on just any old
>	citizen - they picked on one Bernard Goetz,

	This time ... How many others have there been, would there be ...

>	who comes with his
>	own set of scary problems and perhaps a predisposition to kill.

	He was prepared and quite possibly looking for someone to defend himself
	against and it is likely for the purpose of self reconstruction after
	being torn by violence on more than one occasion. But he wasn't 
	looking for any random person on which to vent, unlike the yoots 
        (I kinda like that word ...)
	
>	That makes it something of an anomaly, doesn't it? 

	There are more anomallies riding the trains everyday than you could
	possibly try to count. How many of these anomollies prey on joe
	random public?

	Doug.	

>	What utter tripe.  This Ronnie Raygun mentality is as passe' as junk bonds.  

	Nice dodge, blame someone/something else which is totally unrelated
	to the subject. (Isn't that part of the problem I just mentioned?)

>	And no, they are not criminals in your maligned sense of the word.

	You apparently have no clue as to what constitues a criminal for me.

>The real criminals?  Selfish, money-grubbing scum who scapegoat the poor and 
>malign them with obscene generalizations.

	Another free clue, being poor doesn't justify being a creaton (nor does
	being rich). 

	Your definition of real criminal is a little to selective for me ...

	Doug.
	

    
    Oh, I do.  They aren't nice people who live in a half-a-million dollar
    home in Brookline.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .258
    
    Well, my 'whatever' would be that they learn their behaviour is
    inappropriate and they would stop it.  Now, are you lumping me in with
    the 'wish they died' crowd or not?
    
    Bob

   .272  Hank, I get the feeling that Bernie has been harboring a
	 great deal of anger for quite some time.  That's a sad state
	 of affairs.  Is it anger that's justified?  Very possibly.
	 Is his bigotry justified?  No.  Is what you term not acting
	 "perfectly" (i.e. trying to kill those guys instead of just
	 stopping them) justified?  Not in my book.  I can understand
	 why he snapped, but that doesn't mean he's not guilty of
	 vigilanteism.
  

    re: .271
    
    I see, you deliberately didn't tell us all the 'facts' so you could
    put in your reply and feel all superior.  Typical Bill, make yourself
    feel better at the expense of others.
    
    Bob

|   I see, you deliberately didn't tell us all the 'facts' so you could
|   put in your reply and feel all superior.  Typical Bill, make yourself
|   feel better at the expense of others.
    
    No, at the moment the door closed, I was angry at them.  Learned
    something important about myself that day.
    
    								-mr. bill

let's see, you previous note gave a certain impression:

>    Some here think that this makes me a "sheep."  Nah.  The far greater
>    indignity is suffered by those here who can't imagine traveling in a
>    city without their blankie -- oh, I'm sorry, their concealed weapon.
>    The people here who wouldn't even get on a train because it might
>    contain a few bo-bo heads

An conveniently left out ...

> I was zoning, went to the door late, got blocked.  BFD!

so  

>    One day, I had every right in the world to push two big young men out
>    of the way to exit the downtown IRT 2.  I chose not to excercize such
>    a right.  I got off at Chambers Street instead.
 
should really have been written

>    One day, while riding the train, I was zoning, went to the door late, 
>    got blocked. I had every right in the world to push two big young men out
>    of the way to exit the downtown IRT 2, but I chose not to affect others
>    negatively for my own mistakes, so I chose not to excercize such
>    a right.  I got off at Chambers Street instead.

Clearly, you are not the driver that stopped on the ramp that Shawn encountered
this morning.

	Your getting predictable Mr. Bill,

	Doug.
		 

    
     rem .268 - You are incorrect.  You don't get to define what crime
     is.  That is decided by society, not by you.  What you think
     (and what I think) only matters to the extent we affect what becomes
     law.  There is no law, and no crime, among the beasts on the
     Serengeti.  In 1928, it was a crime to serve a drink.  In 1938, it
     wasn't.  In Utah, it is a crime to operate a slot machine.  Walk 20
     feet across the same desert to Nevada, and it isn't.  Our opinions
     of what is a crime are without effictiveness, because we have no
     authority behind them.
    
      bb

    re .271
    
         This sounds cowardly and fearful. Under the circumstances, you
    thought it was the best thing.  But if I need to get off at a stop and
    someone is in my way I make sure they know I need off.  It sounds like
    you, mr.bill, expected the worse from those individuals, which is
    prejudice since they were apologetic.  Who's the biget?
    -ss
    

re: .237 (.mr bill)

Please. It's "NASAU::" GUILLERMO, not "NASUA". Much too close to 'Nashua'
y'know.

And 'street wisdom' is a broad way of looking at things (pun intended).
Sometimes, just being yourself and not showing 'caution' earns the respect
that should automatically be there. Some of those disturbed individuals out
there resent the instant hostility, loathing and dread, and respond to it
negatively. You make the case in .237 yourself.

As for your continued participation in the 'box, by all means do continue.
Why, by itself, the outlet you provide is likely the greatest contribution to
stress reduction since the four minute mile.

Tip: Next time, when you want to get off try saying "excuse me".

re:topic

Not that I expect any of these comments to resonate much more than a fart in the
wind, this being at least the fourth incarnation of 'box where this subject
and others have thrashed to death....but...

	o  Goetz's justification.

	   From what I know of the case, he overreacted.

	   If any of those who asked/were standing "too close" to Goetz did
	   more than ask for money (such as brandishing a weapon) he was within
	   his rights to brandish his. Whether or not he was "beating them to
	   the draw" and the justification of that is debateable since, to
	   draw a parallel, it should be excusable for me to blow away
	   anyone (or more than one, or with a crowd) who shouts 'nigger'.
	   After all, there is a historical precedent for grave bodily injury
	   following that action too.

	   Fortunately I have (developed) more self-control.

	   As for subsequent shootings, "here's another",  etc., the verdict
	   was just. The award was illogical.

	o  The "double-standard" of derogatory nomenclature.

	   As far as racial epithets are concerned this is a legacy of
	   the slavery/Jim Crow period [huge sigh of exasperation heard here],
	   and the terrific rending of a people's culture. Those who tried to
	   be like the master (for a variety of reasons), spoke like the
	   master and emulated his tastes, dress, and so on. A struggle has
	   been waged for generations in defining an identity and forging a
	   culture and continues to this day. It's an internecine struggle
	   among a race as well as society.

	   Proof in just one sense is, all some can see is people running
	   around with their pants on backwards and caps turned around, while
	   others overemphasize "proper speech" and other superficial (as in
	   "outwardly appearing") attributes and so-called emotional
	   restraint, while attempting to legitimize their existence through
	   material acquisition and ever more creative ways of practicing
	   Darwin's rule.

	   While winning this identity struggle is dependent on those
	   affected, it is not genetically induced nor maintained. It is 
	   environmentally induced and maintained.

	   I know how much some like to discount causal relationships except
	   when it suits their agenda, but denial is immaterial. Even if one
	   is "hardened" by their experience they have been irrevocably
	   changed and it then takes some measure of will or a predisposition
	   to cope with that change. *However* they cope.

	o  Handslaps for criminals/civil rights infringements tacked on, etc.

	   It has been statistically proven that blacks receive harsher
	   sentences for murder.

	   The civil rights angle evolved from a failure of the criminal
	   justice system for blacks as well. (I had to laugh when I heard
	   of the "Justus" township, for I remembered way back in 1960-mumble
	   my father telling me the joke about the criminal justice system
	   being the criminal "just us" system).

	o  Crime in the city vs crime in the suburbs.

	   Crime in the suburbs is on the rise. I said this several years ago
	   and per usual it...well I already used that metaphor.

	   It may be more of a domestic violence/murder-in-the-family variety;
	   it may be more "actively reported", but it's there nonetheless.

	   Whatever the *causal* relationships may be there is no monopoly
	   on "virtue" in the suburbs. 

	   The blanket condemnation ignores a couple of realities:

		o  Some who live in the suburbs patronize and engage in
		   illegal behavior in the city.

		o  The forces which can lead to criminal acts are now being
		   experienced by those who used to be shielded from them.

	o  People can only tolerate victimization for so long before they
	   fight back.

	   Well this couldn't be more ironic. I agree whole-heartedly.

	o  Rap music.

	   While it may come as a surprise to many, given what is promoted,
	   all rap music is not alike. Believe it or not there is some out there
	   that is not mysogynist and vulgar for the sake of being. I entered
	   a list in the 'music' note that included rap and country as my
	   favorites -- what was implied is that there may be only a sample of
	   one within the styles, but as long as it's greater than zero
	   it has to be acknowledged.

Thanks one and all for the inspiration.

|   It sounds like you, mr.bill, expected the worse from those individuals,
|   which is prejudice since they were apologetic.
    
    I didn't expect the worst.  That would be "cowardly and fearful."
    I just didn't expect the best.
    
|   Who's the biget?
    
    Oh, I really do know the answer to that question.  Oh, btw, what color
    where the two big young men who blocked my way on the subway that day?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	You mean the 2 that apologized to you when they realized that
    	they were in your way?
    
    	I believe you said they were black, no?
    

    
    Di. .277
    
    I believe we share the same point of view. I guess I haven't
    expressed that clearly enough.
    
    							Hank
    
    ps. Brandon, good note as usual. regards!

    .272
    
    You tend to use the term "vigilantism" in a very perjorative fashion. 
    Vigilantism sprang/sprung  up when officers of the law, for various
    reasons, were unable to protect the citizens.  This led to people
    organizing themselves in order to protect themselves and insure that
    the "bad guys" did not avoid punishment.
    
    If Goetz had been on the same train with Colin Ferguson and blew him
    away I doubt if anything would have been said.  Or are you trying to
    say that if poor Colin had been paralyzed by Goetz that he should get
    $43 mil?????
    
    As another case in point a District judge threw out charges against a
    would-be bomber, BECAUSE THE BOMB DIDN'T GO OFF.  He said that because
    it didn't detonate that teh prosecutors charges against him had to be
    dropped.  This is exactly why someone like Goetz responds as he does.
    
    The officers of the law can no longer protect the citizens.  this is
    due to numerous reasons, judges that thorw out cases, police that can't
    make reasonable arrests, citizens that can't protect themselves, a
    permissive society that prosecute the victim and treat the perpetrator
    like the victim.
    
    Protect the citizens, prosecute the guilty and you won't have these
    acts.
    

re:.271 - Ok mr. bill I see you were aware of your options. silly me.

    Sorry, I meant note .277.
    

    
    	RE: .287
    
    	You blame the would-be bomber for being acquitted when it
    	would appear that the prosecution decided to charge him with
    	the wrong crime?  I don't think so.
    
    	If I get a speeding ticket, and the officer goes after me for
    	2nd-degree murder, I have every right not be found guilty.
    

>                     <<< Note 711.287 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
    
>    You tend to use the term "vigilantism" in a very perjorative fashion. 

	vigilante n. One who takes or advocates the taking of law
		     enforcement into one's own hands.

	"Vigilanteism" needs no pejoration - it's built in, if you will.
    
>    Or are you trying to
>    say that if poor Colin had been paralyzed by Goetz that he should get
>    $43 mil?????
    
	Er, I'm not trying to say that, and I haven't said that I thought
	Cabey should have been awarded $43 mil either.

>    Protect the citizens, prosecute the guilty and you won't have these
>    acts.

        That may or may not be true, but regardless, it has nothing to do
	with whether Bernie Goetz is guilty of vigilanteism.

    .291
    
    > "Vigilanteism" needs no pejoration - it's built in, if you will.
    
    I refer you to the Vigilance Committee of Virginia City, Montana, which
    successfully destroyed the gang of brutal highwaymen who were robbing
    the coaches that carried gold to Salt Lake City and offhandedly
    murdering the occupants of said coaches.  Virginia City was under the
    legal authority of Bannack, Montana.  The sheriff of Bannack, one Henry
    Plummer, was the leader of the highwaymen.

    > -< re: .260  I was zoning, went to the door late, got blocked.  BFD >-
    
    >	3 - Say "excuse me."  When they didn't move, assume that they
    >        might not have noticed me, might not have heard me, and
    >	    perhaps I just blew it and missed my stop.
    
    >I chose 3.  The doors closed.
    
    >This courteous approach led them to offer an appology for blocking
    >the door.
    
     Oh, so this wasn't a case of being prevented from exiting by people of
    indeterminate intentions. This is a case of you being inattentive and
    their being oblivious. A totally different story from being intimidated
    out of asking shady characters to let you by.

    
      Seems pretty clear that Goetz was a vigilante, in the usual
     sense of taking the law into your own hands.  Now I had thought
     the reason this insignificant case from years ago warranted a
     civil show trial, even though there isn't any real money to move
     around, was as a media event.  To send a message to vigilantes
     and would-be vigilantes.  But if you sum up the two trials, the
     message is garbled, and would only confuse future vigilantes, if
     they bothered to try to receive the message.  I maintain this is
     the norm in our justice system : nobody can figure it out anyways,
     so most people don't know what the law says they can or can't do.
    
      Goetz is found not guilty of any crime except carrying a weapon
     he had no permit to carry.  But he is found civilly liable to those
     who got hurt in his act of supposed vigilante zeal.  Just what is
     anybody supposed to make of that ?  It looks like the US Justice
     system is a casino, that's what.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you
     lose, with some probability of each.  As a guide to behavior, it
     fails its primary mission.
    
      bb

.269

 > And who are these real criminals; white people?

Did I say anything about race?  Sounds like projection to me...

You'll dismiss it as liberal rubbish, but here are the real undeniable 
truths:

Urban blight is the by-product of short-sighted "urban renewal" programs of 
the 60's and 70's, flight to the suburbs (both public and corporate), failure 
on the part of government (at all levels) to maintain investment in urban 
infrastructures, the Reagan-induced failure of community Savings and Loans, 
ad infinitum.

Larcenous crime has steadily increased relative to the earning potential of 
the lower class, and attempts to gut social welfare programs.

Violent crime did not escalate as a result of drug use; rather violent crime 
and drug use skyrocketed with the inception of the War on Drugs.

"Personal responsibility" is not lost on the majority - nor are moral 
absolutes, but the lack of both is shared amongst all classes.  The fact that 
greedy individuals, businesses, and politicians may not kill to satisfy their 
criminal desires does not exempt them from the causal effects their actions 
have on society.

Paint all of these people whatever color you want - I don't care.  But spare 
me the hogwash of scapegoating platitudes.  I, for one, have a deep respect  
for the vast majority of the underclass who are exemplary individuals 
contending daily with selfish bastards who'd sooner blow them away then offer 
any meaningful help.

    
    	RE: .294
    
    	This is very similar to the OJ Simpson case, in case you didn't
    	notice.  He's found innocent [8^)], but not so innocent that he
    	can easily win the civil suit.
    

>Urban blight is the by-product of short-sighted "urban renewal" programs of 
>the 60's and 70's, flight to the suburbs (both public and corporate), failure 
>on the part of government (at all levels) to maintain investment in urban 
>infrastructures, the Reagan-induced failure of community Savings and Loans, 
>ad infinitum.
    
>But spare me the hogwash of scapegoating platitudes. 
    
    bwahahahaha!

    Reply OPPER
    
    So send the poor a welfare check.  That is your answer.

    It is the morally bankrupt liberal policies that you espouse that have 
    created this mess.
    
    --Doug C.

 Z   It is the morally bankrupt liberal policies that you espouse that have 
 Z   created this mess.
    
    It isn't so much the philosophy behind a safety net but rather the lack
    of accountability which created the mess.  Some who are on welfare
    despise it while those who are simply taking advantage of the system
    are giving it a bad reputation!

.281

Righto.  And, where I live, theft is illegal no matter who does the stealing. 
You guys apparently can't appreciate alliteration - "the real criminals" is a 
convenient way to express the exasperation of thinking people who see street 
criminals always considered a more significant threat than the white-collar 
type.  I commend you to consider Marvin? Warner, president of Ohio's Home 
State Savings, whose unmitigated greed destroyed more lives in a short period 
than these four yoots, combined, will, would, or could in a lifetime...

>You guys apparently can't appreciate alliteration 
    
    <guffaw>
    
     Stick to words whose meanings you know and understand.

.297

By god, you're right!  Public and corporate abandoment of inner cities 
actually created a nurturing environment for those left behind!  I wouldn't 
have seen it, but your argument was so intellectually inspired...

.298

Hey!  I'm listening - gimme some examples!  Oh, and bwahahahaha has already 
been suggested.

    Who here is ignoring White Collar crime?

    
      I would take "the real criminals", as a phrase, to mean people
     who actually violated some statute, edict, precedent of law (as
     opposed, for example, to those found to have violated law when
     they actually didn't.
    
      If you meant something else, I can't imagine what, if anything,
     that might be.  Please try to avoid confusion - people are more
     literal here than you think.
    
      bb

 ZZ   Hey!  I'm listening - gimme some examples! 
    
    The Great Society which has fostered the proliferation of an underclass
    while costing the Federal Government trillions.  This was affirmed by
    Lady Byrd Johnson two years ago.  She said her husband had the right
    goal but didn't take into consideration the human factor of wanting
    something for nothing.  

.301

alliterate: make up, invent, create a phrase, rhyme, coin, compose a jingle

Note that there are no dittos in the proper spelling...

>     Stick to words whose meanings you know and understand.

	Eschew expressions etymologically eluding ewe.

    That's the penultimate definition of alliteration.

    .290
    
    I will have to get some additional information on this case, but I
    believe the charge was attempted murder.  It would seem to me that this
    was the appropriate charge.  It would be the same thing as someone
    trying to shoot you and the gun misfires and the judge says, "oh, it's
    not attempted murder because the gun didn't detonate."  It's this kind
    of lamebrained decision that erodes any faith in the legal system.
    
    .300
    
    You seem to take quite a bit of liberty with your accusations.  I have
    never seen anyone in this notes file defend white-collar crime over
    street crime.  Criminals are criminals no matter what the source of
    their crime.  If some slug starts a development and then runs his bank
    into the ground by illegal diverting bank funds to the development then
    the participants in the deal all should go to jail.  this is a perfect
    example of your white collar crime.  Oh, wait a minute, that's what
    they're investigating in Little Rock.
    
    Also, please get your facts right before you start trying to bash
    Reagan.  He did not do a damn thing about the Savings and Loans.  what
    he did was sign a bill that deregulated the S&Ls that was passed by the
    Democratic Congress.  So Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Jim Wright, Paul Simon,
    et al are the ones that you need to hold accountable for the failure of
    the S&L industry.  It was these people's party that pushed the
    legislation through a Congress they controlled.
    

    .294 I will concure with your statements. The system fails two fold.
    One is that we cannot afford to put a cop on every street car, every
    corner, and every possible place to keep they yoots and boogieperson
    from doing their uncivilized acts. And althought Goetz didn't have a
    licence to pack, I am sure its very difficult to get a license to carry
    in the state of New York because of the beloved liberalizm. 
    
    The second part of this is where were mom and dad in the raising of
    these yoots? Why not also make a manatory removal of entitlements, if
    these yoots parents are recieving, and for those who are packing,
    illegally, the state says you cannot wear clothing for a year. You
    cannot buy it, wear it, etc. no shoes either. 

    Mr. Opper you apparently have  serious problem trying to determine
    cause and effect.  Do yourself a favor and do a bit of research and see
    if you can identify the increase in crime, poverty, single-parent
    families, latch-key kids, etc and the introduction of government
    programs that rewarded people for taking less nad less responsibility
    for themselves.  As a start begin with the 1960 and move forward.
    

       Something about some kinda newdeal...or something, right.
    -ss

    re: .293
    
|   Oh, so this wasn't a case of being prevented from exiting by people of
|   indeterminate intentions. This is a case of you being inattentive and
|   their being oblivious. A totally different story from being intimidated
|   out of asking shady characters to let you by.
    
    Everyone keeps seeing what isn't there.
    Let me repeat that, everyone keeps seeing what isn't there.
    EVERYONE.
    
    I never said these big young men were "shady".  I said they were big
    young men.  They were, 18-21, each 6'6", 200+ lbs.  (BTW Shawn,
    you are wrong, I never said they were black.)  I never even said I was
    intimidated.
    
    
    It's really simple.
    
    I got to the doors in plenty of time to leave the car, I just didn't
    get to the doors during the initial rush-in-rush-out.
    
    And when the doors closed after they hadn't moved when I said "excuse
    me" I *was* faced, factually, with people of indeterminate intentions
    who had blocked my exit.
    
    
    After the doors closed I guess they realized they were wrong, that
    I didn't go to the doors to be early for getting off at Chambers,
    I got to the doors a little late to get off at 14th Street.  That's
    why they appologized.
    
    
    I find it street smart to be courteous.  I had every right to get off
    that train by pushing through (and by New York City ethics, some would
    say I didn't even have to say "excuse me" first).
    
    Your code of conduct may vary.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	RE: .309
    
    	I think the correct charge would have been "assault" or some-
    	thing like that.  The phrase "intent to do harm" springs to
    	mind.
    

.309

"Most media have not pointed out that the S&L crisis is rooted in financial 
speculation that Reagan policies have encouraged. As a result of the economic 
malaise which began around 1973 and continues today in many basic industries, 
speculative outlets have served as vehicles for capital that could not be 
profitably invested in the productive economy. S&Ls and other financial 
institutions promised high returns, but overinvestment led inexorably to a 
crash.

This background is rarely mentioned in media accounts, which rely primarily 
on pro-deregulation mainstream economists, government officials and 
self-serving industry reps as sources."

Courtesy EXTRA!

Before you blather on about this bogus crap, you oughtta arm yourself with a 
little valid data.  Start by checking in with David Stockman, post 
Raygun-myopia.

.311

I don't need no steenkin' research...

My home is situated in the "Little Appalachia" section of Dayton, Ohio.  In 
the early 1960's, the majority of these homes were occupied by two-parent 
families; dad worked at NCR, Frigidaire, or GM, while mom stayed at home with 
the kids.  By the early 1970's, all of the aforementioned industries had left 
town, and the city had done its part to descimate the neighborhood by razing 
most useful business real estate in favor of more maintainable empty lots.  
Dad went back to Kentucky or West Virginia in search of employment, mom went 
on welfare, and the kids dropped out of school, many times to help with the 
family finances.  You could probably guess the rest of the story if you 
weren't so damn caught up in your Limbaughesque fantasies of blame.

Here's the real pitch to you and your like - what are YOU doing to improve 
the situation?  Me and my liberal buddies are reinvesting in this 
neighborhood - improving properties, opening small businesses, and sitting on 
our front porches chasing away reprobates with brooms, rather than packing 
heat and looking for villains.

Stay in suburbia - we don't need conservative greed corrupting all of our 
efforts yet again.

    re: .315
    
    And the democratic controlled Congress had absolutely nothing to do
    with passing the legislation that enabled the S&Ls to engage in
    'financial speculation'?????
    
    Only in your dreams.
    
    Bob

  Z  Stay in suburbia - we don't need conservative greed corrupting all of
  Z  our efforts yet again.
    
    Fine.  The inner cities stand as a monument to social government
    engineering!!

    .315
    
    Still can't quite get it right, huh.  The Democratic Congress in it's
    infinite wisdom changed the tax laws, without any prior notice,
    regarding the tax status of REITs.  this made them very unattractive
    and led to HUGE losses for both S&Ls and investors.  They needed to try
    and recoup their losses and both parties took risks.  some were
    successful and some weren't.  the bottom line was that theose
    wonderful,economically brilliant Democrats wanted to punish the wealthy
    and eliminate those bad, evil tax loopholes.  Well they did and have a
    large part of the responsibility for the failure of the S&Ls.  Also,
    David Stockman was and is a jerk.  He was in over is head and wants to
    point the finger at someone else.  If he had the responsibility he
    should have said some thing at the time.  He didn't and now wants to
    paint himself as some poor pawn.
    
    .316
    
    Another example of brilliant economic and financial knowledge.  So,
    your telling us that NCR, Frigidare and GM had very succesful and
    financially solid operations an Dayton adn decided that they would move
    to a new location so that they could ecimate a community. 
    Unfortunately, businesses make business decision, which is exactly what
    they need to do.  If these organizations left the community it was
    because it made the most sense for the corporation and the resto fthe
    employees and investors.  Perhaps you should look at the reasons they
    left and where they went before you make all sorts of liberal charges
    against them.  I suppose Digital is a terrible corporation fro the
    plants that they closed.  Of course, our very existence was at stake,
    but I suppose you think we should ahve kept all those plants and
    employees and gone out of business.
    

.318

Jack sort of explains why Rush & Co. are falling into disrepute.  Political 
fiction, as it turns out, isn't nearly as intriguing to the masses once they 
finally hear political reality.  My contentions are rooted in fact.  Where'd 
you catch yours?  In between Laredo & Lefty's ads?

       re .315
    
    Is it greedy to want your business to succeed?  I hear a little
    hipocrisy here.  Just what kind of business are you and your "liberal
    buddies" starting that you don't want to make money?  Well, seeing that
    you're a liberal, you want to give it to Bonior or Gephardt.  Like
    these clowns know what's going.
    -ss
    

    Steve:
    
    I go by what I see.  Washington DC is owned by the House of
    Representatives, is controlled by the House and is the mecca of leftist
    ideology.  It's economy is in shambels, there are more guns in the city
    per capita than any other, and the death rate is highest amongst cities
    in all industrialized nations.
    
    Rush' comments mean little to me compared to the sobering realities.  
    The plight of Washington DC is not the fault of GTE, Digital or Boeing.
    
    -Jack

    re: Brandon (711.283)
    
|   And 'street wisdom' is a broad way of looking at things (pun intended).
|   Sometimes, just being yourself and not showing 'caution' earns the
|   respect that should automatically be there.
    
    Actually, for me the biggest "street wisdom" comes from knowing that
    at almost all times caution is something that you just carry concealed.
    Caution is something that should only be brandished with cause.  The
    best "street wisdom" comes the times when you were cautious when there
    was no cause, and when you were not cautious when there was cause,
    and *learning* from those times.  (The first usually has more important
    lessons than the second.)
    
    If there are 'boxers here who believe that I tip-toe through
    cities constantly "on guard" then you don't know me very well.
    
    Most of the time the only caution needed and justified is something
    that my son has already learned (but sometimes forgets, which is
    what holding hands is all about):
    
    	Always look both ways before crossing the street
    
    
|	   The blanket condemnation [of the city] ignores a couple of
|          realities:
|
|		o  Some who live in the suburbs patronize and engage in
|		   illegal behavior in the city.

    For those who doubt this (and I know they do) you need only check the
    suburban addresses in the list of johns arrested in the most recent
    sting in Boston.
    
|		o  The forces which can lead to criminal acts are now being
|		   experienced by those who used to be shielded from them.
    
    Nah, the gated communities in the suburbs are just a style thing.
    
    								-mr. bill
                                                                     

  please take it to "politics of the left" or somewhere like that.
  this is about the Goetz verdict.

    re: .319
    
    They also changed the REIT laws retroactively, something that would be
    unconstitutional if attempted with a criminal statute.
    
    Bob

    .320
    
    Was this some sort of a flight of wishful thinking or what?  Please
    cite your sources for the contention here.  Apaprently you unable to
    deal with facts.  Raush and most other conservatives have been very
    straightforward in identifying the problems with our society.  Almost
    none of these problems are addressable through government programs.
    
    Reagan was right and Rush is right in identifying government as the
    source of the problem, not the solution.
    
    You just keep holding on to your liberal philiosophy that government
    can in any way address personal responsibility issues.
    

    .325
    
    Thanks, I forgat that little "gotcha" in the tax law change.  Of course
    that kind of financial tinkering has nothing to do with the reality of
    investors or businesses.
    

    Mr. Bill:
    
    Which city statistically was more dangerous to live in two years ago...
    Bosnia or New York City?  
    
    Answer:  New York City.  While I don't scare on every corner of
    Causeway Street, I tend to be different because I know where I am.
    
    Jack 

    
    A free clue.  Bosnia is not a city.
    
    								-mr. bill

Another free clue: snipers were common in Sarajevo, not in NYC.

    re -1
    
       But compare casualties
    Snipers v. gangsters(and the like)
    -ss
    

.324

The Goetz verdict has been repudiated by the very people who champion 
"personal responsibility" as the cure-all for society's ills, as if to 
suggest that the yoots didn't have any, while god-like Bernie did.  So I'm 
using this forum to shame them into realizing that their indifference to the 
underclass has created both the yoots and Mr. Marvelous.

So sue me...

>       But compare casualties

Sorry, Sarajevo still has NYC beat.  Even if you don't take total population
into account.

>           <<< Note 711.332 by DYPSS1::nqsrv307.nqo.dec.com::OPPER >>>

>So sue me...

	Don't be an idjit.  There was a rathole forming, that's all.

    Sorry...I meant Sarajevo.

    .332
    
    You seem singularly incapable of recognizing the fact that the same
    underclass that you want to champion is exactly the same group that all
    of us, cruel, mean and heartless conservatives want so desparately to
    help.  Unfortuanately you seem to think that the only way to accomplish
    this is through more and more government programs and intrusion.
    
    Reality should tell you that the very same attitude that you want to
    esdpand is the source of the problem.  Until you get rid of the
    paternalistic government that is incap[able of making any differnence
    but negative the downward spiral for these people will continue.  If
    you want to make a difference then stop asking for and supporting
    government programs.
    

One more comment, then I'll take it somewhere else...

David Stockman was and is a jerk?  Next you'll tell me the same about Robert 
McNamara.  Or that Nixon was too liberal.  Have you no sense of loyalty?  
Let's add that to our list of society's ills: No Personal Responsibility, No 
Moral Certainties, No Sense of Loyalty.

    liberalism=dependant state
    

.336

In favor of what?  Government programs that so alienate the haves from the 
have-nots that the only logical conclusion is cities chock-full of Bernie 
Goetzes?  YOUR policies created these criminals, not mine.

mmmm....beer...

conservatism=police state

    .337
    
    Oh wait, you think McNamara was someone to be proud of and have any
    loyatly towards.  Obviously you missed the discussion about this
    wonderful mea culpa book.  Yes, he was a jerk and his book proves that
    he was despicable also.  And, no, I don't think Nixon was too liberal,
    but he did make mistakes.
    
    As for Stockman, he had a responsibility to presnt the information
    about the budget and expenditures.  when he had the position he never
    raised any issues.  After the fact he wants to claim that he never
    believed in them.  sorry, he's a jerk.
    

    anarchy=freedom
    

yes! yes!

    .339
    
    Any government program that separates the haves from the have-nots is
    wrong.  The problem is you want more of them, you just have a different
    target in mind for your programs.
    
    An individual's effort should separate him from anyone else.  If he
    succeeds then he he "has", and no one should claim that he is a bad
    person fro having achieved and try and confiscate his earnings.  that's
    the fallacy of your logic, you think anyone who works to suceed and
    does, is a bad person if they don't giv eit away to someone who
    doesn't.
    

.342

McNamara and Stockman were and are scum.  We agree.  Except that I never 
doubted it.  Same goes for Reagan.  And Bush.  Gimme ten years, you'll agree 
with me yet again.  Now, can we accelerate the process and end this drivel? 
Bernie Goetz was and is scum.  The End.

        liberalism = aids
        liberalism = single parent families
        liberalism = Washington D.C.
        liberalism = polarization = segregation
    
    --Doug C.

    .346
    
    Gee, if you think McNamara was scum then obviously you must think LBJ
    was as well, since he appointed him and supported him.  I'm sure you'll
    feel the same way about Clinton in a couple of years.  so just let us
    know that you will never again support Clionton or his policies and
    everyone can go home happy and hopeful.
    

    so this means that as an AIDS-free, childless Colorado-residing (in an
    itegrated neighborhood) dude
    
    ?I'm conservative?
    
    
    cool.

conservatism = ignoring aids as a global health risk = epidemic
conservatism = penalizing single parent families = poverty and crime
conservatism = Washington D.C. lobbyists = selling out the government
conservatism = isolation = Bernie Goetz (okay, Lady Di?)

.348

Johnson was scum.  Clinton is scum.  I didn't vote for either one.

    .313 Mr. Bill
    
    In many of your entries about street smarts. You talk of being coutous,
    polite, etc. Using your street smarts to avoid confrontation. Would you
    sumize that these yoots are street smart too? They don't have guns,
    they have sharp screw drivers. They know the ropes of the juvi court
    system? The do their petty crimes, then they are out on the streets
    thumbing their noses at the working public... Would you also sumize
    that they would probably understand that there is a danger, a risk,
    when you do these unkind acts? Like someone is going to shoot back?
    
    

    .350
    
    Just so you can understand.
    
    liberalism = creating programs that makes aids as a global health risk 
    = epidemic
    liberalism = creating programs that end up penalizing single parent families
    = poverty and crime
    liberalism = creating programs that encourage Washington D.C. lobbyists 
    = selling out the government
    liberalism = creating programs that force isolation 
    = Bernie Goetz (okay, Lady Di?)
    
    The difference between our two entries is I can point to historical
    evidence that proves the liberal programs result in all the bad things
    you want to say are conservative.  All you can do is chant the liberal
    mantra and offer no proof.  If liberalism is so great and caring, then
    come up with a solution that solves all of these ills and keeps your
    hand out of my wallet.  I can.
    
    
    

    
    
    ** Right
    
    ** Wrong 
    
    or indifferent...This is proof to the old addage, that if your are
    going to use DEADLY Force...Then use it, correctly...
    
    
    Because, Dead MEN DON'T SUE!
    
    
    Sin-te-da

 FWIW, JFK appointed MacNamera..he was an executive at Ford at the time
 (Mac not JFK).



 Jim

    .295 Opper
    
    Your memory has been clouded by time.  I was in the S&L industry from
    1976-1986.  The deregulation of the S&L industry was passed in 1979 by
    a Democratic Congress with the explicit approval of then President
    Jimmy Carter, you remember, 21+% Prime Rates, Paul Volker then head of
    the Fed Reserve trying to balance "stagflation" at the expense of
    middle american savings.   Mr. Reagan was elected in 1980 and his tax
    cuts didn't started having a healthy effect on bringing the economy out
    of that recession until late 1982.  If the democratically controlled
    congress would have also passed his spending cuts, the deficits we are
    now swimming in may but but a faint memory.
    
    BTW, The governor of Ohio was a democrat who approved the sale of the
    S&L that started the Ohio S&L crisis over regulators objections due to
    the fact that Warner was a large campaign contributor of his.  Same
    thing in limoliberal MD.  The governor, Harry Hughes, allowed Jeffrey
    Levitt free reign on pushing Old Court S&L beyond the reach of state
    regulators since he was a major contributor in Harry's gubernatorial
    campaign of 1984.  Local corrupt state politicans, who 'happened' to be
    democrats in Ohio and MD, precipated the S&L disaster, not one Ronnie
    Reagan.
    
    On the other hand, I hold both the Reagan and Bush administrations at
    fault for the "Greenmail" of American industry during the high flying
    80's and the lack of fortitude in dealing with the S&L bailouts of
    88/89.  Total disgrace in my book.
    
    Mr. Bill:
    
    Did I read your note wrong, or did u say that only those lily white
    criminals lived in the 1/2 million dollar house in yer neigherborhood?
    
    Ron

   once again - please be good enough to take this installment of the
   liberal/conservative pee-athon elsewhere.

                     <<< Note 711.354 by CSC32::SCHIMPF >>>

>    or indifferent...This is proof to the old addage, that if your are
>    going to use DEADLY Force...Then use it, correctly...
    
    
>    Because, Dead MEN DON'T SUE!
 
	Poor advice on two counts. One, dead men may not sue, but their 
	families often do. Two, ensuring the death of your attacker is
	one very good way to end up spending a fair amount of time in
	court defending your actions.

	In a self-defense situation you shoot to stop the attack, nothing
	more is justified. Once the attack is stopped, you end your defense.
	No "follow-up" shots, no coup-de-grace. In fact, it's a good idea
	to call 911 and request a ambulance for the wounded attacker. This
	shows that your intent was not to kill, but merely to defend yourself.

	Oh BTW, statistically your chances of shooting someone and killing
	him are only about 30% (70% of gunshot victims survive their injuries).

Jim

    
    
    	Now this string has certainly taken some twists and turns! wow.
    here are a few comments from myself:
    
    	re: courtesy
    
    	I feel that simple courtesy is one of the things that we need more
    of today and I try to exercise that every chance I get. I hold doors
    for people behind me. I help my neighbors carry in their groceries. I
    let cars merge with traffic in front of me. Simple things like this can
    go a long way towards improving our society as a whole (IMHO). 
    
    	BUT, when I have my gun with me MY ATTITUDE DOESN'T CHANGE. And I
    must say that the gun owners that *I* associate with do not change
    their demeanor or their courteous behaviors just because they are
    carrying a firearm. I resent the implication that ALL firearms
    owners/carriers are somehow paranoid or delusional and seek out
    dangerous situations. If anything I (and others) seek to avoid
    confrontational situations at all times. Just the legal implications of
    SHOWING someone your firearm are staggering in terms of lawyer fees and
    court costs.  
    
    	re: inner cities
    
    	I have lived in the inner city and I have lived in the country and
    in terms of actual criminal activity the city takes the lead. In my
    town I am aware of two murders in the last five decades. Try this
    sometime:
    
    	Pick up a scanner and a frequency book
    	tune the scanner to the local PD/emergency freq
    	listen to it during the day and evening before bed
    
    	I listen to my scanner (for only my town and local surrounding
    pd's) and hear very little activity. Mostly motor-vehicle stops, the
    occasional kids creating a disturbance, and ambulance calls. I had
    worcester pd programmed in and had to take it out.....the thing never
    stopped squawking! Beating here, rape there, domestic here, robbery
    there, etc....and this in the comparitively small city of Worcester. In
    my discussions with Worcester firefighters/cops/paramedics/EMTs, they
    ROUTINELY see shootings, stabbings, child abuse, drug abuse, etc, every
    day. 
    
    	Yes, I believe one can walk around in a city without being scared
    of every panhandler on the street. BUT, the crime level in the inner
    city is much HIGHER than in suburbia and I believe one's awareness
    level should be heightened when travelling in urban areas. Not
    paranoia, not drawing your firearm on every stranger who happens to say
    something to you, but just being aware of where you are and the
    potential dangers that exist.
    
    	IMHO, YMMV, etc...
    
    
    	jim

    So, I'm all like, in agreement with you.

    
    	like, cool. B*)
    
    

    
    Re .237 and .253
    
    Mr Bill,
    
    	Regarding the two individuals on the train, You did Not have a
    right to push them. And I think you have contradicted yourself in these
    two notes if the reaseon you did not get off the train at your intended
    stop is because you were afraid to disturb these two people.
    
    ed

    From The New York Times, Sunday, April 28, 1996
    
    								-mr. bill
    
    To The Editor:
    
    Re "The Goetz Verdict" (editorial, April 24):  This is one more attempt
    to choose an agressor and a victim in a case where all the principal
    players were agresses and the victims have been overlooked.  In 1987,
    the concensus was that Bernard. H. Goetz was a victim and Darrell Cabey
    and his companions were aggressors.  Today the reverse has been
    suggested.
    
    Having had the experience of being on that No. 2 train that fateful day
    in December 1984, I contend that there were five agressors and about
    100 victims.  As we entered the dimly lighted car at 72nd Street, which
    four individuals shouting epithets controlled, my girlfriend took my
    hand and moved us to the next car.
    
    Within minutes, there was terror and confusion.  Running from car to
    car, we were among the terrorized subway riders who were convinced that
    a shooter was randomly gunning down passengers.  The train stopped
    between stations for five minutes.  We crammed into the last car of the
    train waiting to be picked off by a crazed gunman.
    
    We were victimized twice that day, by four agressive hoodlums who took
    plaeasure in unnerving fellow passengers and by a self-serving gunman
    who was acting out a personal bengeance without regrad for the trauma
    he imposed on his co-riders.
    
    David Kriegel
    New York, April 24, 1996

      I have read about the 1sr 15 replies so excuse me if I am 
      echoing some of what someone else may have said.
    
      It seems that Goetz did some shooting that is disturbing.
      (Like supposedly shooting someone in the back.)
    
      One thing I am wondering though...what is the cause of the
      mindset Goetz had?  I mean, here's a guy that four people
      just attempted to victimize.  The guy pulls a gun to defend
      himself.  Let us assume he is **MAD**.  Mad people do strange
      things.  Sometimes just a little driving uncourtesy causes
      people to go ballistic.
    
      So Goetz is mad and he does things according to his anger.
    
      My question: why did he get so mad?
    
      Is there any possibility that the four thieves are partially
      responsible for the state of mind Goetz had when he pulled his
      gun?
    
      I say at least partial responsibility.
    
    						Tony

      re: .12
    
      Excellent analogy Mr. Bill.
    
      Why just this morning I saw four mice attempt to steal from
      a cat.  Happens so often that we are all bound to see it from
      time to time.
    
      I am impressed by your capacity for drawing analogies from 
      actual real-life occurances.
    
    						Thanks!,
    
    						Tony

re: Letter to thr editor:

So I guess that all good communitarian citizens have a duty to peacefully
allow themselves to be mugged so as not to frighten the herd.

 I think Bernie had been mugged before and abviously prepared himself to 
 avoid another incident.

 He did state in his testimony that he had "lost it" during the incident.

    
       .365  I can give an 'example' of what MAY have happened, sorta
    Bernie being in a similiar situation as ME.......
    
       I've been working in group and counseling to deal with childhood
    problems, and also problems in my marriage and my life. Well, I finally
    discovered that my no ex-husband didn't want 'changes' he wanted things
    the way they 'were'. Him the BOSS and me just his 'property'. He was
    distroying things that only belonged to me. In seeing how this had 
    become a pattern with him I tried confronting him on a lot of issues.
    
       Well, his pattern got really 'clear' when he started talking about
    a plant that was mine (once you read this, you'll understand what I
    mean that the plant is called the burning bush,, it'll may remind
    some of the 'Burning Bed'...... He said that I needed to let him rip
    it out of the groud. That it was stupid looking where it was, etc. etc.
    I explained that it'd been there for over 10 years and it was
    beautiful! We fought over that bush, he didn't want it moved to another
    area in the yard, he wanted it RIPPED out of the groud! I was mine, and
    I now realize that was WHY it had to be RIPPED, he's the typical
    BATTERER.
    
        Well, I talked about that bush at my group at the Rape Crisis
    center and how I knew that he was going to ruin it soon. I wanted that
    bush and he insisted that it could't be put anywhere else in the
    yard. Then the next day I was at DAYBREAK, a place where woman go when
    they feel that their spouses abuse them. One woman asked me what would
    I do if he rips it out of the ground. I told her I'd kill him because
    it was PROOF to me that he didn't have a grain of love for me or
    anything I loved or wanted. WELLLLLLLLL...... And I mean
    WEEEEEELLLLLLL.
    
       I got home from group.... Yep, you guys guessed it, the bush met
    with an 'accident'..... I flew into a RAGE. I knew he did it on
    purpose, that man didn't come near me for another MONTH! I told
    him that if the bush didn't survive that people would be visiting
    me in Framingham Prison calling me FRaminghams' 9th.... I truelly
    wanted to KILL him at that very moment. I had it way over my
    head by then, all the plants, clocks, my cat, my cars traded in
    by him without my picking one out, it all flew in my  face and hit
    me HARD! I wanted to kill him. ME, a person that wants to get 
    along with everyone, yeah I have my angry moments like anyone else,
    but I never really thought I TRUELLY want to kill someone. After he
    went off hiding on me, I called the hotline and talked for a long
    time to someone, then set up appointments for one-on-one talking
    so I WOULDN'T follow through with it. I really had to FORCE myself
    to not go find him and KILL him. 
    
       Okay, so now everyone knows I'm a potential ex-husband killer.     
    I'd NEVER do that.... At least I hope not 8*(......
    BUT,  For a moment of overwhelming anger I DID want to do it! I didn't
    think about what it would be like it jail, in fact it sorta seemed
    like a joke on him to go to jail. I figured I could get off just
    like Lorena Bobbit and all them wymyns that murdered during a moment
    of passionate anger and hate towards someone whos been victimizing
    them.
    
        Bernie, I identify with YOU!
    
    
        Rosie

    Yes, but you didn't do it, and you still have a life to live.

    .368
    
    By not killing the scum, he's now left to prey on some other
    defenseless woman.  Thanks a lot!
    
    BTW, hint for you literalists: there's a remote possibility that I may
    be kidding.  OK?
    

    Brilliant choice of subject matter. A real knee slapper.

    I said I might be kidding, not that I was being funny.
    

    
       Fact is, at that moment I WANTED to kill him! I didn't have a 
    gun, but he had them in the house. I've never even touched his guns.
    Not only that, when I told him that I wanted to kill him, he ran. He
    went off hiding so's he wouldn't have to face me. I had told him prior
    to that 'accident' about what I learned about abuse and that if he
    did ruin that plant it was abuse. He knew what he was doing.
    
       Rosie

    
    "It's the perfect thing to follow the O.J. verdict.  It's a
    dumb-and-dumber legal system that this country has now."
    
    So, Goetz is back in the courts again.  This time with an emegency
    federal bankruptcy petition.
    
    								-mr. bill

.373

Many of us in this conference commend your restraint.  _Wanting_ to kill him 
seems valid to me.  Killing him, on the other hand, would have served no 
purpose.  Unfortunately, a very vocal contingent here would allege that the 
only way to address a situation comparable to yours would be to mete out 
violence with violence; and that, furthermore, NOT doing so somehow 
compromises you and the rest of society.

A quick note to the literalists: nothing funny here.

.374

I suspect that a civil judgement of this sort would be exempt from bankruptcy 
protection, but I'm not sure...  Anybody have the facts?

    
|I suspect that a civil judgement of this sort would be exempt from bankruptcy 
|protection, but I'm not sure...  Anybody have the facts?
    
    I wish.  Scum can steal, scum can be ordered to pay, scum can declare
    bankruptcy.  They do not go to jail, you collect $0.00.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
      Nope.  Civil judgements are subject to bankruptcy laws like any
     other creditor.  The only exception I know of is that there is no
     bankruptcy for federal tax liabilities.
    
      bb

Isn't it up to the presiding judge whether or not to exempt judgements?

    
    
    >They do not go to jail, you collect $0.00.
    
    As it should be in this case...
    
    Oh wait!! I'm wrong! It should be $0.01...
    
    Howzzat??
    

Or, more specifically, can't a presiding judge refuse a petition of 
bankruptcy if it is an attempt to dodge a judgement?

    
    Offically, he's broke now isn't he? 

    
    
    
    The bankruptcy argument is moot... it's just a formality on his part. 
    
    What's half of nothing???
    

    
      What's a judge going to do - defecate the money ?  It doesn't
     exist.  There's no grounds to block a bankruptcy plea for you,
     me, Goetz, or anybody else.  He gives up all assets he may have
     (with certain small exceptions), and is released from further
     debt.  The only grounds the judge would have would be if Goetz
     were hiding the money somewhere.
    
      bb

    I believe that bankruptcy does not discharge a civil liability such as
    this.  It does, however, eliminate all other debts that he may have.
    
    The scum sucking toad, Caby, will still be entitled to X% of Goetz's
    income for a fixed # of years.
    
    Re: .375
    
    You are so pathetically clueless that I find it amazing you string
    together enough words to make a sentence.  I do not believe that anyone
    in this conference has ever advocated unnecessary violence against
    anyone.  In the writer's experience, if she was being abused and used
    deadly force to protect herself, I and I believe most would support
    her.  In this specific case, I would need to have a better idea of the
    circumstances to form an opinion.  I do not need any additional
    information to reach a conclusion of your basic level of intelligence.
    

    Wanting to kill and killing are two very different things.

    Ask any soldier who has killed.

I think you *all* need to lighten up a bit. It seems that on balance,
one gets what one deserves, so what's the problem?

Pete

From an AP article on Goetz filing for bankruptcy:

  Goetz...has personal property worth about $2,000, including a chinchilla
  and a guinea pig, [Darnay] Hoffman [Goetz's lawyer] said.  He said Goetz's
  notoriety makes the property worth much more and the gunman was worried
  about the fate of his pets.

It's hard for me to imagine a Jackie-O-like auction of Bernie's chinchilla
and guinea pig.

    
|   It's hard for me to imagine a Jackie-O-like auction of Bernie's
|   chinchilla and guinea pig.
    
    It's not hard for Bernard Goetz to see exactly that.
    
    								-mr. bill

.385

>   Apparently the bleeding-hearts just don't get it.  The four criminals
>   lost all rights the moment they decided to accost a law-abiding
>   citizen.  You can couch in any terms you want, but a citizen in this
>   country has the God-given right to go about their business without
>   being robbed, mugged, threatened or intimidated.
>    
>   These four punks violated the most basic social contract and paid the
>   price.  If Goetz had gone looking for them, and they were law-abiding
>   citizens minding their own business, then Goetz should go to prison. 
>   that wasn't the case, and hopefully Goetz sent a message to all
>   would-be crooks.  You will never know when you might go up against the
>   wrong guy on the wrong day.  The jury verdict, which I beleive was
>   racially prejudiced, sends the absolutely wrong message.
>   
>   Personally, I hope many more people will begin to strike back like
>   Goetz did and help make this a safer country.

courtesy 711.231 (ROCUSH)

But I can read, huh?

    .390
    
    Thanks for reprinting my entry.  It was rather good, I think. 
    Unfortunately you seem to be unable to figure out the difference
    between right and wrong.  such is the case of all those who operate in
    the make believe world of liberalism.
    

    .391
    
    This trivial thread ain't about right and wrong - it's about point and
    counterpoint.  I made a point.  You challenged me.  I supported it with
    your own idiotic blathering.
    

    .392
    
    You didn't support anything other than to prove that you still don't
    have a clue.  If you think reprinting my entry proves anything, then
    please point out how and where these points are found.
    
    You are unable to support your rantings and figure that by being cute
    you can get away with it.  So far, it has worked for Clinton, but not
    for you and not here.
    

    Gosh, I thought I was cuter than Clinton.  That's really hitting below
    the belt.
    

    
    rough crowd lately, like sharks at feeding time

    Hells bells! When you take cheap shots your going to get a cheap shot
    back! People wanna inflict their politics in a meaningful way or
    meaningless way. Of course its going to look like feeding time.:O)
    
    Mean time, It will be interesting what the outcome will be with the
    real social grapple of the Goetz shooting. Asin, Bernie will become a
    martared hero for the folks who ride the subways who are dam tired of
    the yoots and the failed system.... 
    

		Goetz    vs  yoots
		LA cops  vs  illegals

I see a lot of similarity

    Gee. I just don't get it.. Please explain?

    
    	The common theme is "going overboard with violence".
    

    Clap for this snarf.

    That's a pretty poor swap.

Glenn, you wouldn't have got it if you'd practiced safe snarfing.

    yet another snarf analyzed to death.
    
    8^)

    So, you like that, then?

    Analyzing things to death? It's one of my faults.

- yoots (illegals) instigated or made the first move. 

- If the yoots (illegals) were to mind their own business (stayed in their
  coutnry), they would not have been hurt.

- The victim initally was Goetz (cops.. should I explain why?)

- Goetz (cops) used excessive force against his perpetrators.

- America is divided as to the level of force used by Goetz (cops). Many
  who had borne the brunt of muggers (illegals), say he (the cops) is justified.

- The initial vicitm, Goetz (cops) is now being prosecuted, in which the 
  the original perpetrators, the yoots (illegals) are termed as victims -):

- The rise of crime by such yoots (illegals) is something America has been 
  neglecting for long and as such public (cops) tends to go overboard at times 
  in these issues.

btw, what is the meaning of yoots ??

    Headline for Variety to use when the film is released:
    
    Putz Pots Yoots: Shootup in the Subway

    
    yoots; a western indian found in the Arizona, Colorado areas back
    in the late 1800's. Were known to be brave warriors, and great pool
    players. Later they were traded to Seattle for a player to be named
    later.

    Colorado?  And here I though it was Ute-ah.

    
    <---- would have ruined the quip.

    I heard today that Bernie is coming to Boston in search of a higher
    paying job. Bad news for us subway riding yoots...

    
        Maybe he'll sell tickets at the booth, or better yet wait by the
    door and welcome you yoots onto the subway.

Tokens, not tickets.

    
    	He could always apply for "People Greeter" at Wal-Mart.  Or
    	maybe a department store security guard?
    

    And he could keep the vagrants away.

    working or non working ones?

    Pending Professor Cobb's verdict, the two may be able to go job-hunting
    together.

GOETZ'S LOSS PROVES TRIAL BY JURY HAS BECOME A JOKE - by Ray Kerrison
New York Post, 04-25-96

     The thugs have won another big one.
     Once more, the criminals have scored and the victim has lost.
     A Bronx jury's $43 million judgment against Bernhard Goetz for defending
himself against four thugs is more than a grievous miscarriage of justice.
     It is a devastating proof that trial by jury now is a joke.  evidence,
fairness, justice, the facts count for nothing.  Race is king.
     But no one will be more dismayed at the Goetz verdict than Austin Weekes,
who surely is spinning in his grave.
     Remember Austin?  He was known for a time as the black Bernie Goetz, and
with good reason.
     On the night of April 13, 1980, Weekes, then 23, was riding a southbound F
train in Brooklyn when two rowdy white teen-agers confronted him.
     One spat at him, "What are you looking at, nigger?"
     With that, Weekes reached down into his roller-skate bag, withdrew a .380
automatic pistol, for which he had no license, and shot one of the white youths
in the heart.  The teen-ager fell to the floor of the train, dead on contact.
     Weekes fled the train and was not apprehended until September 1986 - more
than six years after the incident.  He was arrested and charged with
second-degree murder.
     In custody, he broke down and wept, made a video-taped confession and
disclosed that he had started packing a gun only a week before the shooting
because he had already been mugged once.
     A Brooklyn grand jury refused to indict Austin Weekes.  Not only that, he
was not even charged with carrying an unlicensed gun.
     Weigh that against the 12-year prosecution and persecution of Bernie Goetz,
who killed nobody, and served eight months in prison for shooting his muggers
with an unlicensed gun.
     I'd have given a lot to interview Austin Weekes yesterday.  But he was
murdered in March 1987.
     Nothing so becomes this latest legal atrocity against Goetz as lawyer ron
Kuby crying out, "This sends a real clear message to all the bigots out there,
all the racists with guns, all the people who consider the lives of young black
men to be worthless."
     Funny, you never hear Kuby or any of the professional racists and panderers
talk about the Weekes case.
     Was Weekes a bigot for carrying a weapon to defend himself against two punk
white predators?  Was Weekes a "racist with a gun?"  Was the dead white kid's
life worthless?
     The Goetz case has been debated to death by legions of commentators
(including me) who are notable for one thing - not one was on the train at the
time of Goetz shooting.
     But Andrea Reed, a young black woman, was there.  She saw it all, and her
honest eyewitness testimony in the first Goetz trail is worth more than the
musings of a million second-guessers.
     Reed was traveling on the train with her husband and baby.  When the
shooting started, they fled so quickly, they left the baby carriage behind, but
as they left, she said to her husband, "Those punks got everything they
deserve."
     You'll never hear Ronald Kuby or his ilk mention the name Andrea Reed,
either.
     One of the most despicable elements in this conflict was the reason the
four subway thugs zeroed in on Goetz.
     By their own admission, they singled him out because he looked like the
weakest target on the car.
     The total thug mentality - hit the most helpless.
     So the play was four brutes against one sap - or so they thought - and if
anyone doubts the potential violence these robbers could have inflicted on
Goetz, they have only to study their subsequent criminal careers.
     Goetz may be a flake, but he read his tormentors perfectly.  He was in
mortal danger.  He defended himself, and now is cast as a racist outlaw.
     The great. lingering irony of the $43 million judgment is that the jury
reached its asinine verdict on false assumptions.
     Jurors said that Goetz's taunt to Darrell Cabey, "You don't look so bad,
here's another," and shooting him a second time was the clincher.
     It didn't happen.  Goetz shot Cabey once.  The jury got it all wrong.
     So did The New York Times - surprise, surprise.  In its editorial
yesterday, it said, "Mr. Cabey is paralyzed as a result of a second bullet that
Mr. Goetz fired into him while he was already sitting bleeding in the subway
car."
     False, false, false.  Goetz did not shoot Cabey while he was already
bleeding from his wounds.  Goetz fired five shots - one into each of his
attackers and the fifth bullet went astray.
     So the Goetz case has ended as it began - a legal lynching.

                                                       

    
    
    And Blush's retort is...???????
    
    

    .419
    
    I wonder where all of the bleeding hearts are now?  Why aren't they
    offering their condemnations of this information?  I am sure a few
    facts aren't going to change their opinion.
    
    Once again, these four thugs got exactly what they deseerved for trying
    to prey on law-abiding citizens.
    

  .421  I'm not a "bleeding heart", but the article does nothing to
	change my opinion of the way Goetz responded.  There aren't any
	"facts" in there about the shooting of Cabey that I wasn't	
	aware of before.  He was shot at twice, but hit only once.
	So what?  Is that supposed to mitigate anything?

Now, now - Kerrison's article claims that Goetz was in mortal danger.
William has already told us that such was not the case.

  .423
	So Kerrison saying that Goetz was in mortal danger is one of the
	"facts" that's supposed to change opinions?

I was merely presuming William's opinion of the article.

However, the fact of the matter is that neither Kerrison nor William 
is in any sort of position to evaluate whether or not Bernie Goetz 
actually _was_ in mortal danger at the time.

    .424
    
    No, the fact that Goetz didn't shoot this punk a second time, that
    these punks picked Goetz out specifically because he was an easy mark,
    and the fact that the reverse happened as well and no one claimed
    racism.
    

>        <<< Note 711.425 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>However, the fact of the matter is that neither Kerrison nor William 
>is in any sort of position to evaluate whether or not Bernie Goetz 
>actually _was_ in mortal danger at the time.

	I suppose Goetz's own input into that matters not?

|   However, the fact of the matter is that neither Kerrison nor William 
|   is in any sort of position to evaluate....
    
    A free clue.  When a young couple carrying their baby are in a train car
    flee for their lives (leaving behind their carriage) that's damn strong
    evidence of a feeling of mortal danger.  That they felt that way
    *AFTER* Bernard Goetz opened fire, but not before, should say
    something.
    
    								-mr. bill

>    No, the fact that Goetz didn't shoot this punk a second time, that
>    these punks picked Goetz out specifically because he was an easy mark,
>    and the fact that the reverse happened as well and no one claimed
>    racism.

In the Weekes case, one of the punks called him "nigger."  Did any of the
punks who confronted Goetz use racist language?

    
    
>    A free clue.  When a young couple carrying their baby are in a train car
>    flee for their lives (leaving behind their carriage) that's damn strong
>    evidence of a feeling of mortal danger.  That they felt that way
>    *AFTER* Bernard Goetz opened fire, but not before, should say
>    something.
    
    	I don't know about y'all, but if I'm on a train and a COP starts
    shooting at bad guys, I'm still going to run like hell. Just the fact
    that a firearm was discharged is enough to make anyone run, it doesn't
    matter who the shooter is or what the shooting is about. I guess I'm
    not sure where you're going with this. 
    
    
    jim
                                          

    
|   I don't know about y'all, but if I'm on a train and a COP starts
|   shooting at bad guys, I'm still going to run like hell.
    
    What Jim - You'd run like sheeeeple?
    
    The point Jim - the couple and their baby were not in mortal danger
    from the four - they *were* in mortal danger from Bernard Goetz.
    
    
    Oh BTW.  Oh Jack?  Remember .203?  (Probably not....)
    
|How 'bout if I tell you Bernie checked for pregnant women and kids
|before he opened fire? Does that make a difference?
|
|[No - I don't have a clue if he did so. Do you have a clue as to whether
| or not any were present?]
    
    Goetz either did NOT check and did NOT care
    or Goetz did check and did NOT care.
    Your choice.
    
    								-mr. bill

    The young lady who was running for her life said, "Those punks got
    exactly what they deserved."  That seems like a pretty fair assessment.
    
    I have no doubt when the shooting fired she was scared as she did not
    know who was doing the shooting.  When she found out that scum bought
    the farm, she did not have any concerns about her safety or that Goetz
    was wrong.
    
    I know facts like these are inconvenient for you, but they are pretty
    important to me.
    

    
|   When she found out that scum bought the farm, she did not have any
|   concerns about her safety or that Goetz was wrong.                        
    
    Ah, *that* explains why she made that "pretty fair assessment" to her
    husband *AS THEY WERE FLEEING WITH THEIR BABY*.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .433
    
    Yeah, I think you finally got it right.  Or are you attempting to say
    that the witness really didn't say that, or they were terrified that
    Goetz was going to open up on them next?
    

>    Goetz either did NOT check and did NOT care
>    or Goetz did check and did NOT care.
>    Your choice.

How the hell do you know he didn't care, Bill? He was careful enough
not to hit her, wasn't he?

 >Title:  Goetz placed her, her her husband and her baby in danger....
  
 No, the yoots did that.

 and, are we not allowed to protect ourselves in the presences of other
 non-involved individuals?

    
    
    	
>|   I don't know about y'all, but if I'm on a train and a COP starts
>|   shooting at bad guys, I'm still going to run like hell.
>    
>    What Jim - You'd run like sheeeeple?
    
    	No, I'd run like anyone else that has half a brain. Anyone who
    would stick around to see what the commotion is all about is beyond
    stupid. 
    
    	The whole purpose of owning a firearm (for myself and others) is
    for self-preservation. It is *NOT* to stand toe to toe with some bad
    guy and sling lead. If I can run away from a dangerous situation
    instead of using my firearm to defend myself, then I'll run! Your
    comment is unwarranted and assinine.
    
    >    The point Jim - the couple and their baby were not in mortal danger
>    from the four - they *were* in mortal danger from Bernard Goetz.
    
    	The point Mr. Bill is that Bernie was in mortal danger (or
    perceived himself to be) from the four. If a police officer was in that
    car and the four yoots approached him with sharpened screwdrivers at
    the ready, would he be justified in shooting them even tho' others were
    in the car with him? Would he be justified in shooting them on a busy
    street? Within 500ft of a dwelling? 
    
    	Are we only allowed to defend ourselves when we are completely
    alone?
    
    
    jim

>           <<< Note 711.437 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>
    
>    	The point Mr. Bill is that Bernie was in mortal danger (or
>    perceived himself to be) from the four. 

	Again, this conflicts directly with what I understood him
	to say.  I thought he said he wasn't afraid.  Am I mistaken?

>                                            If a police officer was in that
>    car and the four yoots approached him with sharpened screwdrivers at
>    the ready, would he be justified in shooting them even tho' others were
>    in the car with him?

NYC Transit Police very rarely shoot.  I'd be very surprised if, had the
person they accosted been an undercover cop, he would have even drawn a gun.

    And I'd be even more surprised if a NYC Transit Police officer would
    attempt to execute four bo bo head subway riders.  (BTW Jim, the four
    did not approach Bernard Goetz branishing sharpened screwdrivers.
    But don't let facts get in the way.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    Di:
    
    I think it makes a big difference whether u consider the events as mr
    bill described them or u take the article from the POST today and that
    account.  At the original trial, Goetz claimed he was afraid for his
    life, only shot Cabey once, and passengers reinforced his version of
    those events.  As time has passed, with the benefit of 20/20, u can come
    to the conslusions u make that he is a racist.  I don't think he should
    be held up as a model citizen; however, I don't feel he is the scumbag
    blush made him out to be and he was acting in self-defense.
    
    rON

    
    
    	
>    And I'd be even more surprised if a NYC Transit Police officer would
>    attempt to execute four bo bo head subway riders.  (BTW Jim, the four
>    did not approach Bernard Goetz branishing sharpened screwdrivers.
>    But don't let facts get in the way.)
    
    	I never said the yoots approached Goetz with sharpened screwdrivers
    out, I just gave you a theoretical situation which you chose not to
    address. BTW, most cops hardly ever shoot.
    
    	re: Lady di and goetz saying he wasn't scared
    
    	Just because you aren't scared doesn't mean you are not in danger. 
    
    jim

  .441  What makes you think I'm using either mr. bill or the Post
	as a source?  I watched part of Goetz's testimony, in this
	recent trial, on TV and my recollection is that he said he wasn't
	afraid.  If I missed the part where he said he thought he was
	in mortal danger, I'd like to know that.
  

    Di:
    
    Go back to the original trial and review those transcripts.  He felt he
    was in mortal danger and that's why he opened firee.

>           <<< Note 711.442 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>
    
>    	Just because you aren't scared doesn't mean you are not in danger. 

	Of course not.  However, one would assume it factors into your
	level of accountability for taking certain actions, such as 
	drawing a gun and shooting people.  No?

>           <<< Note 711.444 by USAT05::HALLR "God loves even you!" >>>
    
>    Go back to the original trial and review those transcripts.  He felt he
>    was in mortal danger and that's why he opened firee.

	Since we're discussing the appropriateness of the verdict in this
	trial, I'd like to know what he said about being in mortal danger
	_this_ time. 

    
|   Go back to the original trial and review those transcripts.
    
    Bernard Goetz did *NOT* testify in his original trial.  Hope this helps
    to jog your memory.
    
    								-mr. bill

He had more reason to say that he felt he was in danger during the criminal
trial.  Judging from his testimony in this trial, he didn't care about the
verdict.

Oh God, this is going to turn into another OJ style note.

BBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG.........

>	Again, this conflicts directly with what I understood him
>	to say.  I thought he said he wasn't afraid.  Am I mistaken?

One need not be afraid to recognize that one is in danger. He may have 
been psyc'd for all we know, but that doesn't change anything ....

>   (BTW Jim, the four
>    did not approach Bernard Goetz branishing sharpened screwdrivers.
>    But don't let facts get in the way.)


 While this is true, there were still 4 large yoots and one tiny goetz, and
he had every reason to believe he was in deep doodoo, whether he was
looking for trouble or not.

The fact that they were carrying said screwdrivers in their pockets should
tell you what these yoots had in mind, if not for bernie, for some other
victim.

Doug

    
    	Maybe they were all on the way to a friend's house to do some elec-
    	trical work.
    

>  Judging from his testimony in this trial, he didn't care about the
>verdict.

True enough. He already knew the what the outcome would be.

Doug.

    
    
re:             <<< Note 711.445 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

>>           <<< Note 711.442 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>
>    
>>    	Just because you aren't scared doesn't mean you are not in danger. 
>
>	Of course not.  However, one would assume it factors into your
>	level of accountability for taking certain actions, such as 
>	drawing a gun and shooting people.  No?
    
    	Being scared makes it more acceptable eh? I'm not quite sure what
    ot make of that. I've been in situations where I was most certainly in
    danger (car out of control fer instance) and found myself to be very
    calm and analytical. Should I still try and bring the car back in
    control even though I'm not scared? Of course. 
    
    	When one is in danger, one reacts. Fear doesn't always play a role.
    
    	jim
    
    p.s. - I do believe I see what you're trying to say. I'm just giving
    you my view.
    

  .455  I shouldn't have used the word "afraid" at all.  Did he think
	he was in mortal danger?  That's what I'm trying to find out.
	I got the impression he didn't think so.  If he didn't think he
	was in mortal danger, then would he have been justified in
	trying to kill them?

       re: .456
    
    	
>	I got the impression he didn't think so.  If he didn't think he
>	was in mortal danger, then would he have been justified in
>	trying to kill them?
    
    	If he didn't think he was in mortal danger then no, he would not
    have been justified in shooting them. On the other hand, just the mere
    fact that he pulled a firearm tells me that he thought/perceived he was
    in serious danger. If he was looking to just kill someone then why
    didn't he just pick out four gang-bangers and start blazing, rather
    than waiting for them to approach him? He was not the one "asking" for
    five dollars.
    
    jim

    Bernard Goetz believed that under New York Law he had to be afraid for
    his life to use lethal force.  Bernard Goetz, in interviews with
    police, said he was *NOT* afraid for his life.
    
    The original jury never heard that.  They had to go on the basis of
    applying how a "reasonable man" in Goetz's shoes, would he "fear for
    his life".  They decided it was quite possible that he would. 
    Reasonable doubt, acquital.
    
    
    The latest jury heard exactly how Goetz felt at the time.  Unafraid.
    He made a decision to assassinate the four, and he gave it his best
    shot.  (Best five shots, actually.)
    
    								-mr. bill

|   On the other hand, just the mere fact that he pulled a firearm tells me
|   that he thought/perceived he was in serious danger.
    
    You are thinking like Jim Sadin, who would never pull out a firearm
    unless he thought he was in grave danger.
    
    You have to think like Bernard Goetz.  He testified that he had once
    before pulled a gun on a homeless man and wanted to kill him just
    because the homeless man was "acting like a total asshole."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
>          -< People who find subways scary believe he was afraid... >-
    
    	I must admit to finding the subway one of the least desirable modes
    of transportation for myself (although I have riden on a few). I also
    find south main in worcester a bit scary, but that may be because every
    time I walk down there I hear "HEY! HEY WHITE BOY! WHACCHOO DOIN' OUT
    HERE WHITE BOY? KEEP ON WALKIN' WHITE BOY AND YOU JUST MIGHT MAKE IT
    OUT OF HERE ALIVE!". but that's just me. More power to you if that kind
    of stuff doesn't make you look over your shoulder.
    
>    Bernard Goetz believed that under New York Law he had to be afraid for
>    his life to use lethal force.  Bernard Goetz, in interviews with
>    police, said he was *NOT* afraid for his life.
    >    The latest jury heard exactly how Goetz felt at the time.  Unafraid.
    
    	So he wasn't afraid. Was he not afraid for his life BECAUSE he was
    carrying the gun? Did he feel more secure due to its presence? At least
    admit that it's a possibility anyway. 
    
    	jim	

    
    
>    You have to think like Bernard Goetz.  He testified that he had once
>    before pulled a gun on a homeless man and wanted to kill him just
>    because the homeless man was "acting like a total asshole."
    
    	Yeah, I remember that quote. I don't like Goetz as a person, that's
    for sure. However, in this instance (the yoots on the subway), he
    treaded a very fine line. If the yoots had stabbed him, he would have
    had every right to shoot them. Were they planning on stabbing him? Who
    knows. We have their testimonies (for whatever they're worth) that they
    were going to rob him. Would physical assault have accompanied robbery?
    Possibly. 
    
    	My main point is, we can't say Goetz is completely wrong and these
    yoots were sparkling clean. We cannot say that Goetz absolutely had no
    right to draw a firearm on these four. The only ones who can say for
    sure are Goetz and the four youths.
    
    jim

Is it true about the 5 shots, one bullet per scumbag and one that missed
everyone?  This doesn't sit right with the "you don't look so bad, here's
another" statement.  Either the 'yoot' collapsed out of fright/played dead
before he was ever hit, or he was hit and the "another" missed him entirely,
or Goetz never fired the "another".

Fill me in?

Personally, I don't think that Goetz' "testimony" in the recent judicial 
farce has much validity anyway. We're talking about the words coming out of
the mouth of a man who was involved in this incident how_many years ago?
Who's done time in jail for the illegal weapons possession. Who's had the
past n years to be pushed around by the press and the BHL's. Who's had his
earning potential destroyed. And who now gets the "privilege" facing his
"accuser" in this ridiculous civil case.

If I were Goetz walking into that court room, knowing pretty well that he
was going to lose the case, knowing pretty well that he wouldn't be able
to pay any settlement, and knowing pretty well what a farce the whole thing
was at this point, I wouldn't be too concerned about offering any valid
testimony on my part. And I'd probably say a lot of things sheerly for the
shock value. Just to see how many people on the other side I could piss off.

But William is going to take Bernie's testimony in this recent fiasco as
"proof positive" of the error of Bernie's ways.

'Cuz William is "street smart".

    It has nothing to do with being "street smart", Jack. What does Bernie
    have to gain through "shock value"? All he would stand to do was
    alienate those supporters he has, barring the nutters. 
    
    
    lunchbox

> What does Bernie have to gain through "shock value"?

Did you ever find yourself in a situation that couldn't possibly get worse?
And you're so pissed off at the world in general that you simply don't give
a chite anymore?

It's not a question of what Goetz had to gain. The point is that he had
nothing to lose. And he had an opportunity to get a lot off his chest without
any penalty.

It's the "screw 'em all and the horse they rode in on" attitude, Lunchbag.

But William will chose to believe that everything Bernie said was gospel.

    He did have something to lose, though. He regularly receives donations
    to fund his legal battles, cost of living, etc.  If he makes himself
    look like a bigger yutz than he already has, he stands to lose some of
    his support, something he cannot afford to do in the face of a $43
    million settlement.
    
    
    lunchbox
    

1) "Something" tells me he'll lose little, if any, of the "regular support"
   he receives through donations of this kind, regardless of what he says, 
   or how much of a yutz he makes himself look.
2) In the face of the $43M lawsuit, he is actually, from a fiscal standpoint,
   far better off if he can demonstrate less, rather than more support. If 
   you'll be careful to note, there is a percentage limit by/to which his
   income may be attached.

    I thought the settlement entitled the yoot to 10% of his income. 
    90% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
    
    A lot of his donations came from some fairly public businesses. The NRA
    gave him upwards of $250,000 during his criminal trial. 
    
    I don't trust Geotz, or what he says, at all. I can see no advantage to
    going out of his way to make himself to look like a complete armpit,
    however. 

>    I thought the settlement entitled the yoot to 10% of his income. 
>    90% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
 
Big freakin' deal! Put yourself in Bernie's shoes for a moment. "I ain't
worth more than a stinkin' $20K per year. This slimeball punk has a $43M
handle on my shorts. at 10% per year, I can keep the creep eating bread
and water in his stinking wheel chair for 21,500 years before he gets
his "settlement", and it's really no skin off my nose!" [What's the big diff
between $20K and $18K? I can do that sort of thing without flinching, as
can many.]
   
>						I can see no advantage to
>    going out of his way to make himself to look like a complete armpit,
>    however. 

Prolly because you weren't paying attention to what I was saying, Lunchsack.
People get to a point where they really don't care how they look or are
perceived when they've been beaten badly enough. Sometimes you just get to the
point that you want to clear your mind, and everything else be damned. As I
said before, Bernie had absolutely nothing to lose. They couldn't put him in 
jail and he had nothing for them to attach to. Didn't you ever have the
feeling that you _wished_ you had nothing to lose so that you could alienate
yourself from just about everyone who could otherwise detract from your
worth? Bernie is there. He went for it, IMO.

    I was paying attention to what you were saying, but I suspect his
    income is slightly more than $20,000 a year, given the donations he
    gets. I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer recieved $12,000 his first year in prison.
    Bernie is less loony than Jeff, for sure, so I would guess he has a few
    more fans. 
    
    I have been frustrated to the point that I have thrown down the gloves
    and given in to my Id. I payed for it, though, as will Bernie, if that
    is what he did. Usually something like that happens in the heat of the
    moment, though. Probably why he gave in to his rage on the train that
    day. This has been a long, drawn out thing, he's had a chance to get
    himself together, rather than throw a self destructive series of
    tantrums.
    
    
    lunchbox
    
    

>	This has been a long, drawn out thing, he's had a chance to get
>    himself together, rather than throw a self destructive series of
>    tantrums.

Unless he's just so damned pissed off that this (the civil court farce)
was the last straw.

If I were Bernie, it sure would have been for me. Screw 'em all - I've had it.

This being a "long, drawn out thing" isn't incentive for getting one's
act together, necessarily.

>     -< waiting for the bankruptcy results  which may make this all moot >-

I thought somebody here established that bankruptcy won't affect Cabey's
claim on Goetz's future earnings.

Established? A soapbox 'expert'?

If the court 'establishes' the yoot as a creditor ($43M worth), that creditor
may have to take what the court deems fit, and then the debt is wiped clean.

There would be little reason to pursue bankruptcy if the potential
for eliminating the debt did not exist.

Doug.

>There would be little reason to pursue bankruptcy if the potential
>for eliminating the debt did not exist.

See .388 for his lawyer's take on why he's filing.

    If you were Geotz, wouldn't you rather make $50,000, giving the yoot a
    mere $5,000, and keeping $45,000 for yourself than to only take home
    $18,000, giving him $2,000? That extra $3,000 isn't going to put Cabey
    in the lap of luxury, but the $27,000 might be nice for Geotz. 

    
    Goetz.  Goetz.  Goetz.
    
    

Deb goetz all upset when people mispell.

    sorry, deb.  :>)

i don't know how goetz would feel about any amount of money
going to that worthless piece of garbage. i do know that if 
i were in his shoes, one cent going to him would turn my
stomach.

in fact, i'd probably go on unemployment or travel the country
working under the table so that creep wouldn't see dime one.

    
    re: .458
    
    >The latest jury heard exactly how Goetz felt at the time.  Unafraid.
    >He made a decision to assassinate the four, and he gave it his best
    >shot.  (Best five shots, actually.)
    
    Too bad he didn't have one of them high capacity 9mm jobs, eh, Blush?
    
    That's a 15 round mag plus one in the pipe... which equals 4 rounds per
    perp... er.... victim...
    
     I mean, if you're gonna "assassinate" someone, might as well do the
    job right.... wot??

    
    re .481
    
    If you're gonna do it right, don't use a 9mm.
    
    
    ed

   And unless you got it a while ago you can't get one (new) with a 15 round
   mag...

   -- Sam

    
    
    	There are plenty of "new" 9mm's with 15rd mags out there
    (manufactured before the crime-bill). It's just that you pay about $70
    a magazine....:*)
    
    

    
    .483
    
    	Yup, see them all the time. 
    
    9mm may be fine, I just prefer my .40 with 10 round mag. Hopefully alll
    my practicing will negate the need for the extra 5 rounds.
    
    ed

-1 a man after my own heart!

    
    
    Hmmmmm....
    
    When I bought my Beretta 92fs 9mm, I purchased two
    extra 15 round mags... at $29.95 ea.
    
     Wonder what I should scalp..er. sell them for now???

   Oops, I mis-spoke myself.  So sorry.  I'd forgotten that the Clinton Ugly 
   Gun and Flash Hider Ban wasn't retroactive.

   -- Sam

    I've got and 18 round mag and several 15 for my 9mm.
    Don't recall what I paid, but, it was a lot less than $70.
    
    
    Mike
    

    
    I got a rock. paid much less than $70 for it too.

    
    
    >I got a rock. paid much less than $70 for it too.
    
    yeah.. but you can only throw it once...
    
    How you ever gonna assassinate someone like that???
    

    
    Tie a string to it so you can reel it in.