A Crime of Self-Defense: Bernhard Goetz and the Law on Trial

by George P. Fletcher

The popular press dubbed him "the subway vigilante": Bernhard Goetz, who on December 22, 1984, shot four black youths on a New York subway train when one of them asked for five dollars. Goetz claimed to have fired in self-defense, out of fear that the young men were about to rob him.

Genres: Law, Nonfiction, College

272 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1988

Reviews

[Brandt]

This book is about more than just the trial of Bernhard Goetz. Within this book you will find the main contending theories of self- defense as they are expressed in various forms throughout the legal landscape. The important part of reading this book is being able to highlight the four main theories of self-defense, and the four elements that attach to those theories.

There are four conflicting theories of self-defense. Within these four conflicting theories, there is also four weighting elements that provide the general framework for the law of self defense. The four elements are intention, proportionality, necessity, and imminence (Fletcher 26). The four elements make up the strength and weaknesses of each theory of self-defense.

The first theory is that self-defense is a form of privately inflicted punishment that is just. In this model of self-defense the elemental requirements that a threat is imminent and that the reaction was necessary, are extremely loose. In addition, the proportionality of defense is questionable. As an example, the crime of rape can be defended by killing the aggressor. However, the crime of rape is not punishable by death under the law. This undermines the proportionality requirement of the theory. The benefit, under this model, is that the defender gets to dish out justice.

The second model of self-defense treats it as an excuse, based on the defendant's uncontrollable reaction to fear. This defense is sometimes called the “cornered animal defense”. This theory has its roots in English law from the 13th to the 16th century, when it was called se defendendo (Fletcher 30). Under this theory of self-defense, the killing of another person is still homicide, but it is justifiable in that, if we were caught in the same circumstances, we would have acted the same way (Fletcher 30). This theory relies heavily on the issues of necessity and imminence, but loosens the requirement of proportionality. Under this defense, before using violence, it is a requirement that there are no other options but violence.

The third model of self-defense holds it as an “individualist” justification. Under this theory, an individual has a right to “stand their ground” against an aggressor that is in the wrong. This model changes the excusable theory held in se defendendo, to a justifiable criteria. Under the most extreme versions of this model of self-defense, the proportionality requirement is dropped completely in favor of the belief that, any encroachment on an individual requires vindication. This theory also relaxes the requirements of necessity and imminence. It is this third model of self-defense the Goetz' lawyer, Slotnick, invoked in the defenses opening statement when he stated:

“[N]o one can ever take away your inalienable
right to protect your property or your life or your
family. No one can walk up to me and say,“give me
that watch,” “give me your ring,” “give me five
dollars.” And if they do, heaven help them if I'm
armed, because I know what the law allows.”
(Slotnick qtd. in Fletcher 33).

The fourth theory of self-defense, much like the third one, is also a justification theory, but this one is the “social” version. Under the extreme version of the “individualist” theory of self-defense, proportionality is completely rejected. Under the “social” theory of self-defense, the proportionality element is given the most weight (Fletcher 33). Under this theory, humans are treated as interdependent, cooperating members of society that seek mutual advantage, as such, the defender must consider the aggressor as a human being, and not merely as an intrusive force (Fletcher 34).

In the trial of Bernhard Goetz, his attorney, Barry Slotnick, relied on an interweaving of all the theories except for the “social” justification. During the trial, if the focus turned towards Goetz fear of the Troy Canty, Barry Allen, James Ramseur, and Darrel Cabey, then Slotnick would rely on the second model of self-defense, treating Goetz' response as an excuse (Fletcher 36). If the focus turned toward emphasizing Goetz' right not to surrender his property (money), then the arguments would turn toward the “individualist” theory of self-defense (Fletcher 36).

Perhaps the most relied upon theory of self-defense in the Goetz trial was the first theory. This relied heavily on the oft repeated phrase by Slotnick, and witnesses, in that “they got what they deserved”. By using this phrase often and repeatedly, the defense made an appeal to imminence and necessity that they wanted the jury to believe Goetz acted within. By placing the emphasis on Goetz' fears, the defense was able to appeal to the emotions of the jury (Fletcher 37).

Given the difficulties found in the various theories, I would suggest a proportionality justification based on forced consequences. This justification on forced consequences would hold that both the defender, and the aggressor, have an absolute unconditional and unqualified right not to be killed. Using parts of all four theories, and combining them equally with the elements of intention, proportionality, necessity, and imminence, this forced justification would help unravel responses to distinct situation. I would treat each case as separately and distinct from previous cases, and not rely on precedence. I strongly believe that each act of self-defense is distinct, and cannot be equally compared to one another. However, the importance of the elements of self-defense should each be considered when determining the right or wrong of the action.

[Staci]

An infuriating and facinating read about a trial that should have gone another way. Berhard Goetz is pathetic and a murderer, who's defense lawyers massacred the incompetent prosecuters in his trial.

Goetz gunned down a few obnoxious black kids on a NY subway and got away with it because his attorneys manages to paint the kids as hooligans and Goetz as merely acting in self defense, when that is not at all what happened.

It is very interesting to see how our legan system failed those boys. A fantastic read.

[Victor]

I read this book during my first semester in US to get more knowledge about self-defense, an action at that time I thought I might resort to sooner or later in US. However, it turned out to be more than just a case. Actually it's more about the US judicial system, the long standing racial discrimination issue, and a lots of more.

[Kevin Powers]

Enjoyable and thought provoking. More about the legalities of a self-defense claim than the shooting itself.

[Scilla]

This was an interesting book about the trial of Goetz for shooting the four hoodlums on the subway in New York. It goes through the entire story of the shooting, Goetz's turning himself in in NH, the indictments, and the full trial. It was interesting hearing about the choosing of the jurors as well as the entire trial. I was a little surprised that they also talked about what happened during the jury deliberations, as I thought from my own service on a jury that no one talked about that in detail afterwards, especially with the names of the other jurors.