Hubbry Logo
1984 New York City Subway shooting1984 New York City Subway shootingMain
Open search
1984 New York City Subway shooting
Community hub
1984 New York City Subway shooting
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
1984 New York City Subway shooting
1984 New York City Subway shooting
from Wikipedia

1984 New York City Subway shooting
The 14th Street station in Manhattan, where Goetz boarded the subway before the shooting
LocationNew York City, New York, U.S.
DateDecember 22, 1984; 40 years ago (1984-12-22)
Attack type
Mass shooting[1]
WeaponSmith & Wesson Model 38
Injured4
MotiveDisputed:
Charges
Sentence1 year in jail (released after 8+12 months)
Verdict
  • Guilty of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon
  • Not guilty on remaining charges
ConvictionsThird-degree criminal possession of a weapon
ConvictedBernhard Hugo Goetz
LitigationGoetz ordered to pay $43 million ($86 million today) to Cabey in civil trial for reckless and deliberate infliction of emotional distress[5]

On December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz[b] (/ˈɡɛts/[8]) shot four black teenagers on a New York City Subway train in Manhattan after they allegedly tried to rob him.[9][10][11][12] All four victims survived, though one, Darrell Cabey, was paralyzed and suffered brain damage as a result of his injuries.[13] Goetz fled to Bennington, Vermont, before surrendering to police nine days after the shooting. He was charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury subsequently found Goetz guilty of one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm and acquitted him of the remaining charges. For the firearm offense, he served eight months of a one-year sentence. In 1996, Cabey obtained a $43 million civil judgment against Goetz after a civil jury ruled Goetz as liable, equivalent to $86 million today.[13]

The incident sparked a nationwide debate on crime in major U.S. cities, the legal limits of self-defense, and the extent to which the citizenry could rely on the police to secure their safety.[11] Questions of what impact race—and racism—had on Goetz, the public reaction, and the criminal verdict were hotly contested. Goetz was dubbed the "Subway Vigilante" by the New York press; to his supporters, he came to symbolize frustrations with the high crime rates of the 1980s. The incident has been cited as leading to successful National Rifle Association campaigns to loosen restrictions for concealed carrying of firearms.[14]

Incident

[edit]

In the early afternoon of December 22, 1984, four men from the Bronx—19-year-olds Barry Allen, Troy Canty, and Darrell Cabey, and 18-year-old James Ramseur—boarded a downtown 2 train (a Broadway–Seventh Avenue express). Canty would later testify that the victims were en route to steal from video arcade machines in Manhattan.[15] 37-year-old Bernhard Goetz boarded the train at the 14th Street station in Manhattan.[16] At the time, about fifteen to twenty other passengers were in a R22 subway car, the seventh car of the ten-car train.[17]: 23 [18] Those involved and witnesses disagree what happened next.

Troy Canty asked Goetz how he was,[19] and shortly thereafter stood up, approached Goetz, and made some overture for money:[20] According to Canty he alone approached Goetz, and said, "Can I have $5?"[21] According to Goetz, Canty was joined by another of the teens and Canty said, "Give me five dollars" in a "normal tone" of voice with a smile on his face.[10][22] In 1986, the NY Court of Appeals concluded from grand jury evidence that Goetz pulled a handgun and fired four shots at the four men, initially striking three of them.[23] After initially opening fire, Goetz then bent down to Cabey, who was cowering on the ground, and said, "You don't look so bad. Here's another," and shot once again, missing.[24] Cabey's spine was severed, resulting in brain damage and partial paralysis.[25][13]

Shortly after the shooting, the train conductor entered the car and loudly exclaimed, "What's going on?" He approached Goetz and asked what happened. Goetz pointed to the north end of the car and then told him, "I don't know ... they tried to rob me and I shot them."[17]: 102  The conductor then went to the passengers to check if they were injured before returning to Goetz and asked if he was a police officer, which Goetz denied, and he then asked Goetz for the gun, which Goetz refused to turn over.[17]: 102 

Shooter

[edit]

Bernhard Hugo Goetz was born on November 7, 1947, in the Kew Gardens, Queens neighborhood to German immigrants.[26][27][28] His father was Lutheran and his mother was Jewish before converting to Lutheranism.[29][30][18]: 10 [31] While growing up, Goetz lived with his parents and three older siblings in Upstate New York, where his father ran a dairy farm and a bookbinding business.[32] Goetz attended boarding school in Switzerland[33] before returning to the United States to obtain a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and nuclear engineering from New York University.[32] Goetz then moved to Orlando, Florida, where his family had relocated, and worked at his father's residential development business. After a divorce, Goetz moved back to New York City, where he started an electronics business out of his Greenwich Village apartment.[32]

According to Goetz, in early 1981, he was the victim of a robbery at the Canal Street subway station.[22][34] Goetz reported that three black teenagers had smashed him into a plate-glass door and thrown him to the ground, injuring his chest and knee.[35][17] Goetz was involved in a struggle with one of the teenagers until police arrived; that individual accused Goetz of assaulting him.[35] To his frustration, Goetz was detained for six hours, while the person he accused was released in two and a half hours.[35] Goetz subsequently applied for a permit to carry a concealed handgun, on the basis of routinely carrying valuable equipment and large sums of cash, but his application was denied on the grounds of "insufficient need".[32] He bought the 5-shot .38-caliber revolver he would ultimately use in the shooting during a trip to Florida.[32]

Goetz was known to use racist language: his neighbor Myra Friedman reported overhearing Goetz having said, "The only way we're going to clean up this street is to get rid of the spics and niggers" at a community meeting eighteen months before the shooting.[35][36] Friedman's account was excluded from the criminal jury trial,[37]: 472  but in a subsequent civil action, Goetz admitted to having used both epithets at a neighborhood meeting.[38]

Goetz's flight, surrender, and interrogation

[edit]

After the shooting, Goetz took a cab back to his 14th Street home before renting a car and driving north to Bennington, Vermont; he then burned the distinctive blue jacket he had been wearing and scattered the pieces of his gun in the woods.[39] Goetz stayed at various hotels in New England for several days.[39]

On December 26, an anonymous hotline caller told New York City police that Goetz matched the gunman's description, owned a gun, and had been assaulted previously.[40][41] On December 29, Goetz called his neighbor, Myra Friedman, who told him that police had come by his apartment looking for him and had left notes asking to be contacted as soon as possible.[35] Goetz told Friedman he had felt as though he was in a "combat situation", needing to "think more quickly than [his] opposition."[35]

Goetz returned to New York City on December 30, turned in the car, picked up some clothing and business papers at his apartment, rented another car, and drove back to New England.[41] Shortly after noon the next day, he walked into the Concord, New Hampshire police headquarters and told the officer on duty, "I am the person they are seeking in New York."[41] Once the officer realized that Goetz was a genuine suspect, Goetz was Mirandized and elected to talk to the police.[32] The Concord police made an audio recording of Goetz's interview.[22] New York police detectives Susan Braver, Michael Clark, and Dan Hattendorf subsequently interviewed Goetz, and a two-hour video recording of that interview was made.[22] Both interviews were played at the criminal trial.[42][43]

Goetz told police that he felt that he was being robbed and was at risk of violence, and he explained he had been both mugged once before and nearly mugged several times:[22] "I've been in situations where I've shown the gun. ... The threat, when I was surrounded, and at that point, showing the gun would have been enough, but when I saw this one fellow [Canty], when I saw the gleam in his eye ... and the smile on his face ... and they say it's a joke and lot of them say it's a joke."[22][44] Asked what his intentions were when he drew his revolver, Goetz replied, "My intention was to murder them, to hurt them, to make them suffer as much as possible."[45] Goetz also said that, after firing four shots, he moved to Cabey and said, "You seem to be doing all right, here's another," before shooting him again.[22]

Later in the tape, Goetz said, "If I had more bullets, I would have shot them all again and again. My problem was I ran out of bullets."[22] He added, "I was gonna', I was gonna' gouge one of the guys' [Canty's] eyes out with my keys afterwards", but said he stopped when he saw the fear in his eyes.[46] He denied any premeditation for the shooting, something that had been speculated on by the press.[17]: 58 

[edit]

Criminal case

[edit]

Goetz was brought back to Manhattan on January 3, 1985, and arraigned on four charges of attempted murder, with bail set at $50,000. He was held in protective custody at the Rikers Island prison hospital.[47] Refusing offers of bail assistance from the public and from his family, he posted bail with his own funds and was released on bond January 8.[48]

Indictments

[edit]

Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau asked a grand jury to indict Goetz on four counts of attempted murder, four of assault, four of reckless endangerment, and one of criminal possession of a weapon.[49][50][51] On January 25, the grand jury refused to indict Goetz on the more serious charges, voting indictments only for unlawful gun possession—one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, for carrying in public the loaded unlicensed gun used in the subway shooting, and two counts of possession in the fourth degree, for keeping two other unlicensed handguns in his home.[49]

In March 1985, Morgenthau announced that the state had obtained new evidence—an unnamed witness—and sought leave to convene a second grand jury; Judge Stephen Crane granted Morgenthau's motion.[52] Morgenthau granted immunity to Troy Canty and James Ramseur, which he had previously declined to do, allowing them to testify before the second grand jury.[20] The second grand jury indicted Goetz on charges of attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment and weapons possession.[53] In January 1986, Judge Crane granted a motion by Goetz to dismiss these new indictments.[54] Judge Crane dismissed the charges on two grounds: First, he held that the prosecutor had erred when instructing the grand jury that, for Goetz's actions to be protected by New York's self-defense statute, they would have to be objectively reasonable.[54] Second, he found that Canty and Ramseur "strongly appeared" to have perjured themselves.[54][55][56][c]

The prosecution appealed the case, maintaining that a self-defense justification required objective reasonableness and that the statements Judge Crane relied on did not indicate perjury or require dismissal.[54] In July 1986, after an appellate division upheld Judge Crane's dismissal, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the appellate division and reinstated the charges. The high court clarified that a defendant's subjective perception of imminent danger does not, by itself, justify the use of force; instead, it held, that belief must be both subjectively held and objectively reasonable.[57]: 304 [44] Additionally, the court held that Judge Crane's perjury finding was "speculat[ive]" and "particularly inappropriate": "[A]ll that has come to light is hearsay evidence that conflicts with part of Canty's testimony. There is no statute or controlling case law requiring dismissal of an indictment merely because, months later, the prosecutor becomes aware of some information which may lead to the defendant's acquittal."[44]

Trial

[edit]

In December 1986, jury selection began and in April 1987, the trial commenced before a Manhattan jury of ten Whites and two Blacks, six of whom had been victims of street crime.[58][59] Goetz was represented by Barry Slotnick and Mark M. Baker. Goetz conceded that he had shot the four men, but he asserted that his actions were justified by section 35.15(2) of New York's justification statute, which, with non-relevant exceptions, permitted the use of deadly force when actor "reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force ... or ... is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery".[44]

The key question for the jurors was how to separate the vague perception of intimidation from the more specific threat of robbery, or from the "threat of deadly physical force," which Justice Crane told the jurors were the two grounds that would justify Mr. Goetz's use of his weapon.

— Kirk Johnson, The New York Times[53]

Both prosecution and defense agreed that the jury would be required to consider several factual questions, including (1) whether the teenagers had acted as a group or as individuals, (2) whether Goetz had shot Cabey after the immediate threat was over, and (3) whether Goetz was threatened.[60]

As to whether Goetz had been threatened, Canty testified that he was merely panhandling when he asked Goetz for $5.[21][61] Ramseur testified that Canty approached Goetz alone and that he, Allen, and Cabey remained seated,[62][63] but Ramseur's testimony was stricken after he professed his belief that Goetz would be acquitted regardless of the evidence and eventually refused to answer Slotnick's questions.[39][64] Neither Goetz nor Cabey testified, and Allen took the Fifth Amendment.[17] Amanda Gilbert, a witness, testified that Cabey, after being shot, told her, "I didn't do anything. He shot me for nothing," but her testimony was stricken as hearsay.[39] The defense called police officer Peter Smith, who testified that, after he arrived on the scene, Canty had told him that the group was planning to rob Goetz.[39] On cross examination, the prosecution pointed out that Smith had failed to report the statement to his superiors or to a reporter when giving a television interview.[64][39]

Another point of contention at trial was whether Goetz had shot at least some of the men in the back.[65] For the defense, Dominick DiMaio, Suffolk County's former medical examiner, testified that Allen, Canty, Cabey, and Ramseur had been standing in a semi-circle around Goetz when he opened fire.[65] But the county's then-current medical examiner, Charles Hirsch, offered rebuttal testimony that it was medically impossible to determine how the victims were positioned when shot, and he also found that the bullets that hit Allen and Cabey had traveled from back to front, suggesting that both had been shot in the back.[65] Ballistics expert Joseph Quirk, for the defense, testified that Allen had been shot while ducking rather than while running away.[39] On cross examination, Quirk conceded that the prosecution's theory was also consistent with the evidence, and, after being shown a photograph of a bullet-entry wound in Allen's back, Quirk admitted that he had based his theory as to Allen on incorrect information provided to him by the defense.[39]

Specifically related to Goetz's shooting of Cabey, the parties contested whether Cabey had been struck by the fourth or fifth shot and whether, if the fifth, Goetz had paused before firing.[18]: 69, 126  According to the prosecution, Goetz shot the seated Cabey at point-blank range with his fifth bullet; the defense argued that Goetz had fired all five shots in short order and Cabey had been hit by the fourth shot before collapsing.[17]: 208  One witness testified that, consistent with Goetz's since-recanted police statement, Goetz opened fire before approaching to within "two to three feet" of a seated Cabey; the witness demonstrated how Goetz stood directly in front of Cabey and fired downward shooting Cabey in the stomach.[17]: 138 [18]: 123–125  But the eight other witnesses who testified on the matter reported that all shots came in "rapid succession"[18]: 171 [66]—one said the firing lasted "about a second",[17]: 102  and none of those eight testified that they had observed Goetz standing in front of Cabey.[17]: 235 

Verdict and post-verdict appeal

[edit]

Goetz was acquitted of the attempted-murder and first-degree-assault charges and convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree for carrying a loaded, unlicensed weapon in a public place.[53][d] Goetz was originally sentenced to 6 months in jail, 1 year's psychiatric treatment, five years' probation, 200 hours community service, and a $5,000 fine.[68] But Goetz appealed the conviction and sentence.[69] As to the conviction, Goetz argued that the judge's jury instructions improperly discouraged jury nullification; the appellate division and New York Court of Appeals rejected that argument.[70]: 475 n.158 [71] As to the sentence, Goetz argued that the state's gun laws required, at minimum, a one-year sentence.[69] (Under New York's then-existing law, a defendant sentenced to 6 months would have been required to serve, at minimum, 90 days, while a defendant sentenced to 1 year would be eligible for release after 60 days.[69]) On this point, the appellate court agreed, overturning the sentence.[72] On remand, Judge Crane sentenced Goetz to 1-year incarceration and a $5,000 fine.[69] Goetz ultimately served 8 months,[73] receiving credit for good behavior.[74]

Civil litigation

[edit]

Cabey v. Goetz

[edit]

A month after the shootings, Cabey, represented by William Kunstler and Ron Kuby, filed a civil suit against Goetz.[75] The civil case was tried in 1996.[76] Unlike Goetz's criminal jury, which was predominantly White and from Manhattan, the civil jury was half African American and entirely from the Bronx.[11]: 91 [77] Additionally, crime in New York City had fallen substantially since the criminal trial.[11]: 91 [78]

While race had only been subliminally addressed in the criminal trial,[77] Cabey's civil-trial attorneys explicitly argued that Goetz had been motivated by race.[78] Goetz admitted to previous use of racial language and to smoking PCP-laced marijuana during the 1980s.[38][79][80] For the defense, Jimmy Breslin testified that, in a 1985 hospital-bed interview, Cabey, while denying his own involvement, said that Allen, Canty, and Ramseur intended to rob Goetz because he looked like "easy bait," but Cabey's attorneys pointed out that Cabey had suffered brain damage prior to the interview and that Breslin's column described Cabey as "confused."[81]

The jury found that Goetz had acted recklessly and had deliberately inflicted emotional distress on Cabey. Jurors awarded Cabey $43 million; $18 million for pain and suffering and $25 million in punitive damages.[82] Goetz subsequently filed for bankruptcy, saying that legal expenses had left him almost penniless. A United States bankruptcy court judge ruled that the $43 million judgment was nondischargeable.[83]

Because Goetz was only "sporadically employed as an electrical engineering consultant," the expectation was that 10% of Goetz's income for the next 20 years would be garnished.[84]: 902 n.159  Stephen Somerstein, one of Cabey's attorneys, expressed some optimism that a portion of any book deal Goetz signed could contribute to the judgment.[85] In 2000, Kuby told reporters that he had hired a firm specializing in debt collection to pursue Goetz, but he noted that Goetz "appear[ed] to be living in voluntary squalor."[86] Asked in 2004 whether he was making payments on the judgment, Goetz responded "I don't think I've paid a penny on that", and referred any questions on the subject to his attorney.[87]

Goetz's defamation claims

[edit]

In 1990, Goetz filed a defamation action against Cabey; his mother, Sherry; and his attorneys, Kunstler and Kuby.[88] The suit was dismissed.[89]

In 1994, Goetz filed another defamation action related to My Life as a Radical Lawyer, a book by Kunstler, published by Carol Communications, Inc.[90][91] Amongst other claims, Goetz objected to the book's description of him as a "paranoid" "murderous vigilante" who had "developed a hatred for blacks."[92][91] Goetz specifically objected that the book's description of him as a racist hurt his "good name, reputation, feelings, and public standing."[91] The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the statements complained of were, varyingly, protected opinion (rather than actionable fact statements), not defamatory, or substantially true.[90][92][93]

Public reaction

[edit]

The shootings initially drew considerable support from the public.[94][95] A Daily News-WABC-TV poll released in January 1985 showed 49 percent of the 515 New Yorkers questioned approved of Goetz's actions, while only 31 percent disapproved.[96] A special hotline set up by police to seek information was swamped by calls supporting the shooter and calling him a hero.[97][98] In March, Morgenthau reported that the letters his office received were running 3 to 1 in Goetz's favor.[99] The same month, a Gallup poll interviewing 1,009 adults found that 57% of respondents approved of Goetz's shootings and two-thirds said that Goetz had acted in self defense.[100] But, compared to the January poll, Goetz's support among African Americans had dipped considerably: while only 36% of Black respondents disapproved of his actions in the January poll, 53% reported disapproval in the March poll.[100] Questions of what impact race had on Goetz's thinking, the public's reaction, and the verdict by the (predominately White) criminal jury became hotly debated.[101]: 49 [102] The Los Angeles Times reported that, during the criminal trial, demonstrators outside the courtroom chanted "Bernhard Goetz, you can't hide; we charge you with genocide."[103]

Initial sources differed in reporting the sequence of shots fired, timing of shots, whether Cabey was shot once or twice, and whether any of the men Goetz shot were armed. Some reports, picking up on Goetz's statement to the police, suggested that Cabey had been shot twice,[50] but later reporting revealed that he had been shot only once, in the left side.[104] Additionally, early reports suggested that the teenagers had approached Goetz carrying "sharpened" screwdrivers;[105][106][107] those reports, too, were found to be false: The screwdrivers—Cabey carried two and Ramseur carried one—were not sharpened and, based on the available testimony, were not removed from Cabey's or Ramseur's pockets[105][17]—no witnesses reported seeing screwdrivers, and Goetz repeatedly denied he was threatened with them.[105][17][108] When Canty testified at Goetz's criminal trial, he said they were to be used to break into video arcade change boxes and not as weapons.[10]

Supporters viewed Goetz as a hero for standing up to his attackers and defending himself in an environment where the police were increasingly viewed as ineffective in combating crime.[94] The Guardian Angels, a volunteer patrol group of mostly Black and Hispanic teenagers,[109] collected thousands of dollars from subway riders toward a legal defense fund for Goetz.[98] The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a right-leaning civil rights organization, supported Goetz.[110] CORE's director, Roy Innis (who had lost two of his sons to inner-city gun violence and would later be elected to the executive board of the NRA[111][112]), offered to raise defense money, saying that Goetz was "the avenger for all of us".[98] A legal group founded by the NRA—the Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund—donated $20,000 to Goetz's defense.[80] Harvard Professor of Government James Q. Wilson explained the broad sentiment by saying, "It may simply indicate that there are no more liberals on the crime and law-and-order issue in New York City, because they've all been mugged."[98] Professor Stephen L. Carter bemoaned the public's initial reaction to the shooting, arguing, "The tragedy of the Goetz case is that a public barely aware of the facts was rooting for him to get away with it. The tragedy is that a public eager to identify transgressors in advance decided from the start that Mr. Goetz was a hero and that his black victims deserved what they got."[113]: 424 

While race was never explicitly mentioned at the criminal trial,[77] Professor George P. Fletcher argued that Goetz's criminal-defense team—which referred to the men Goetz shot as "savages," "predators," and "vultures"[77]—made a "covert appeal to racial bias," which, he argued "came out most dramatically in [a re-enactment] of the shooting."[18]: 206–07  In the courtroom re-enactment, four "fit and muscular" Black members of the Guardian Angels were asked to portray the four teenagers Goetz shot and surround Goetz.[18]: 206–07  Professor Bennett Capers agreed that the use of the four "large black men" to stand in for the "four black youths" was, effectively, a "backdoor race-ing."[114]: 887  As to the criminal verdict, Benjamin Hooks, director of the NAACP, called the outcome "inexcusable," adding, "It was proven—according to his own statements—that Goetz did the shooting and went far beyond the realm of self-defense. There was no provocation for what he did." Representative Floyd Flake agreed, saying, "I think that if a black had shot four Whites, the cry for the death penalty would have been almost automatic."[115]

United States Attorney Rudolph Giuliani met with black political and religious leaders calling for a Federal civil-rights investigation.[116] C. Vernon Mason, an attorney and spokesperson for the group, said, "We have come to the Federal Government as [B]lack people traditionally have done to seek redress when it is clear that state and local authorities have either failed to act or are incapable of acting."[116] After an investigation, Giuliani ultimately determined that Goetz had acted out of fear, which he distinguished from a "racial motivation."[117][118] In a 2007 interview with Stone Phillips of Dateline NBC, Goetz admitted that his fear may have been enhanced due to the fact that the four men he shot were black.[119]

Subsequent developments

[edit]

After reaching an all-time peak in 1990, crime in New York City dropped dramatically through the rest of the 1990s.[120] New York City crime rates by 2014 were comparable to those of the early 1960s.[121][122]

Darrell Cabey fell into a coma after the shooting; he suffered irreversible brain damage and was paralyzed from the waist down.[123] In 1985, the Bronx District Attorney determined that Cabey had the mental capacity of an eight-year-old.[123] Goetz accused Cabey of exaggerating his injuries.[123] Goetz questioned Cabey as to his injuries in two depositions and was unable to elicit an answer longer than a single sentence; when asked, Cabey denied having previously heard the name "Bernie Goetz".[123]

Troy Canty entered drug-rehabilitation and vocational-training programs.[124] One of Canty's attorneys, Scott H. Greenfield reported that Canty planned to attend culinary school.[124]

In March 1985, James Ramseur reported to police that two men apparently hired by Goetz kidnapped and attempted to murder him.[125] The following day, after detectives played back to Ramseur the emergency 911 recording reporting the kidnapping, Ramseur admitted it was his voice on the call and to fabricating the report. Ramseur explained it was merely to test police response when a Black person was a crime victim, and was not prosecuted for this hoax. Ramseur was convicted in 1986 of the 1985 rape and robbery of a young pregnant woman.[126] Conditionally released in 2002, Ramseur returned to prison for a parole violation in 2005; he finished his sentence in July 2010.[126] On December 22, 2011, the shooting's 27th anniversary, James Ramseur died at age 45 of a drug overdose in an apparent suicide.[126][127]

In 1989, Barry Allen was charged with robbing a 58-year-old man of $54.[128] In 1991, he was convicted and sentenced to 3.5 to 7 years.[129]

Goetz achieved celebrity status after the shooting.[130][131] In 2001, he unsuccessfully ran for mayor of New York City; amongst other issues, Goetz advocated for a vegetarian menu in New York City schools, jails, and hospitals.[132][133] In 2004, Goetz was interviewed by Nancy Grace on Larry King Live, where he stated his actions were good for New York City and forced the city to address crime.[87] In 2005, Goetz unsuccessfully ran for public advocate;[133] he described the subway shooting on his campaign website.[134] In late 2013, Goetz was arrested for allegedly attempting to sell marijuana to an undercover police officer.[130][133] After Goetz's attorney moved for dismissal on speedy-trial grounds, a judge agreed that prosecutors took 14 days too long to prosecute the case, and it was dismissed in September 2014.[135]

In 2023, African-American civil rights leader Al Sharpton and former assistant district attorney Mark Bederow compared the Goetz case to the killing of Jordan Neely.[136][137]

[edit]

Bernie Goetz is briefly mentioned in Billy Joel's 1989 song "We Didn't Start The Fire".[138]

The protagonist (the Joker) of the 2019 film Joker is partly inspired by Goetz.[139][140] Todd Phillips, who wrote, produced and directed the film, grew up in New York City and claimed to remember the 1984 subway shooting from his youth.[140]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
The 1984 New York City subway shooting occurred on December 22, 1984, when Bernhard Goetz, a 37-year-old white electronics technician carrying an unlicensed .38-caliber revolver, fired upon four black teenagers—Troy Canty (age 19), Barry Allen (18), James Ramseur (19), and Darrell Cabey (15)—aboard a southbound No. 2 train near 14th Street in , wounding three in the arms and legs and paralyzing Cabey with a shot to the back. Goetz claimed the shootings were in , asserting the youths had surrounded him aggressively, with one grabbing at his clothing as if to rob him, amid a context of pervasive on New York subways that year, including over 2,000 reported felonies. After fleeing into the tunnel and evading capture for nine days, Goetz surrendered to police, where he provided a detailed describing his of imminent based on the youths' demeanor and his prior experiences with . Indicted on charges including , first-degree , and reckless endangerment, Goetz's 1987 criminal trial centered on New York's justification defense statute, with the prosecution arguing excessive force and the defense emphasizing reasonable belief in deadly threat; the acquitted him of all major charges except third-degree , for which he served about eight months of a one-year sentence. In a subsequent 1996 civil trial, a rejected Goetz's argument regarding Cabey and awarded the paralyzed victim $43 million in damages, though much of it remained uncollected. The incident, often termed the "Subway Vigilante" case, crystallized public anxieties over and criminal impunity in New York, where subway assaults had surged, prompting varied reactions: widespread support for Goetz as a resisting predation—given the attackers' criminal histories, including prior robbery and weapons convictions for three—contrasted with criticism of racial and gun proliferation. It influenced discussions on laws, with New York's appellate court upholding the acquittal by clarifying that subjective fear, not proportional response, governs justification, while highlighting tensions between individual agency and state monopoly on force in high-crime environments.

Historical Context

Subway Crime Epidemic in 1980s New York City

During the early 1980s, the New York City subway system experienced a severe crime epidemic, with reported transit felonies reaching nearly 15,295 in 1981 alone, according to a Los Angeles Times report cited by contemporary analyses. This figure encompassed robberies, assaults, rapes, and murders, averaging around 42 felonies per day and reflecting a broader surge in violent incidents that made the system one of the most dangerous urban transit networks globally. Subway murders contributed to the toll, with 13 recorded in 1981, amid citywide homicides totaling 1,814 that year—the highest on record at the time. The intensity was such that police documented up to 30 felonies in an eight-hour period at the decade's start, overwhelming the understaffed Transit Police force, which numbered over 2,300 officers by 1980 but struggled with budget constraints. Contributing factors included the city's lingering fiscal crisis from the mid-1970s, which led to reduced maintenance, rampant , and diminished visible policing, fostering an environment of disorder that emboldened criminals. The crack cocaine epidemic, peaking in the mid-1980s, exacerbated violence through turf wars and addiction-driven desperation, particularly in underserved neighborhoods reliant on subway travel. Reports from the era highlighted frequent muggings and assaults, with an average of 38 crimes reported daily in the subway system during the decade, prompting civilians to form groups like the Guardian Angels for patrols starting in 1979. Economic and high in areas like the further fueled predatory behavior, as riders faced routine threats from panhandlers, thieves, and armed assailants. The epidemic eroded public confidence, causing subway ridership to plummet to levels not seen since the , as fear deterred commuters and tourists alike. By the mid-1980s, felonies continued to climb, setting the stage for peak levels of 18,324 in 1990, though incremental policing efforts under Mayor began to show modest dips in some metrics. This period of unchecked disorder contrasted sharply with later declines following aggressive enforcement strategies in the , underscoring how lapses in deterrence and rapid societal shifts amplified the crisis.

Bernhard Goetz's Background and Prior Experiences

Bernhard Hugo Goetz was born on November 7, 1947, at Hospital in , New York, the youngest of four children to Bernhard Willard Goetz, a German immigrant who arrived in the United States in , and Gertrude Goetz, who had Jewish ancestry from but had converted to . The family initially resided in before relocating briefly to , and then to near Mount Kisco, where Goetz's father operated a metal plant after earlier ventures in and . Goetz's upbringing was marked by family tensions, including his father's 1960 conviction for endangering the welfare of two young boys through molestation, for which he served six months in jail following appeals; Goetz himself later described a strict but non-abusive dynamic in interviews, though contemporaries noted strained relations with his father. Goetz attended New York University, earning a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical and nuclear engineering around 1970. After graduation, he briefly worked at his father's plating business before moving to Manhattan in the mid-1970s, where he established a small electronics repair operation specializing in televisions and other devices, often transporting valuable components on public transit amid New York City's escalating crime rates during the decade. By the early 1980s, Goetz had become increasingly wary of urban violence, a sentiment shared by many residents as subway felonies surged, with reported incidents rising from 7,546 in 1979 to over 10,000 annually by 1982. Goetz's prior encounters with crime directly influenced his decision to arm himself. In 1981, he was assaulted by three teenagers in who beat him and stole electronics components valued at approximately $300, prompting him to purchase a .38-caliber revolver in and illegally transport it to New York. Approximately 18 months before the 1984 shooting, Goetz recounted another incident where a panhandler on the subway brandished a knife and demanded money, heightening his perception of imminent threats in daily commutes; he chose not to draw his weapon on that occasion but began carrying it loaded thereafter. These experiences, detailed in Goetz's post-arrest statements to police, underscored his stated rationale for preparations in a city where felony assaults on subways had climbed 64% from 1980 to 1983.

The Incident

The Confrontation on the Train

On December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz, a 37-year-old , boarded a southbound No. 2 train of the at 14th Street station in , taking a seat in the rear of the seventh car, which was sparsely occupied. Four Black teenagers from —Troy Canty (19), Barry Allen (18), James Ramseur (19), and Darrell Cabey (19)—were already on the train, having boarded earlier at higher stops; the group had been acting boisterously, prompting other passengers to move to different cars. Canty and Allen, two of the youths, approached Goetz, with Canty standing directly in front of him and asking, "Give me five dollars," delivered in a tone Goetz later described as casual but which he interpreted as the start of a predatory interaction, akin to a " playing with a ," informed by his prior experiences with . The other two youths, Ramseur and Cabey, positioned themselves nearby, effectively surrounding Goetz, though no weapons were visibly displayed or verbal threats explicitly made beyond the money request; the youths carried screwdrivers in their pockets, intended for breaking into video arcade machines rather than as immediate threats. Goetz, who was armed with an unlicensed .38-caliber revolver holstered in his waistband—a he carried due to repeated muggings in prior years—perceived the group's demeanor, including Canty's smile and their collective stance, as signaling imminent violence or , fearing severe injury based on past assaults where attackers had beaten him after compliance. In testimony, Canty maintained that the request was made politely without aggression or intent to rob forcefully, and that the group had no plan to harm Goetz, portraying the encounter as a simple panhandling attempt amid the city's prevalent petty crime. Goetz briefly considered compliance but decided against it, instead standing up and turning toward the youths as tension escalated in the of the moving car, which was passing through the tunnel between 14th Street and Chambers Street stations. This moment marked the peak of the confrontation, with Goetz's heightened sense of peril—rooted in the youths' numerical advantage, their proximity, and the absence of intervention from other passengers—leading him to prepare for , though accounts diverged on whether the youths made any further moves or statements before he acted. The incident unfolded rapidly against the backdrop of New York City's subway system, where felonies had surged in the early , contributing to widespread passenger fear and avoidance of confrontation.

The Shooting and Immediate Sequence

Bernhard Goetz stood up from his seat, drew a .38-caliber from his jacket, and fired five shots in quick succession at the four youths who had approached him on the southbound No. 2 train. The first shot struck Troy Canty in the chest; the second hit Barry Allen in the arm; the third wounded James Ramseur in the chest after passing through his arm; and the fourth missed Darrell Cabey, ricocheting off a subway strap. Goetz then turned to Cabey, who was seated and uninjured, pointed the gun at him, and according to Goetz's later , stated, "You seem to be all right, here's another," before firing the fifth shot into Cabey's chest, severing his . In the immediate aftermath, nearly all other passengers in the car fled upon hearing the gunfire. Goetz walked toward the front of the car and reloaded his revolver. A female passenger who remained confronted him, and Goetz reportedly told her, "He tried to grab me," referring to one of the youths. The train's conductor, alerted by the shots from the adjacent car, entered the scene, observed the wounded youths slumped over seats and on the floor, and asked Goetz if he was a police officer; Goetz denied it and explained, "I don't know why I did it. They tried to rip me off." The motorman applied the emergency brakes, halting the train short of the Chambers Street station around 9:30 p.m. Upon arrival at the station, Goetz exited through the doors, ascended the stairs, and fled into the night, later dismantling his weapon and discarding evidence. Transit police arrived shortly thereafter, securing the car, which contained the four injured youths and a few remaining witnesses, while emergency medical services transported the victims to hospitals.

Aftermath and Investigation

Victims' Injuries and Criminal Histories

Troy Canty, aged 19, was shot once in the chest and made a full recovery. He had a prior including convictions and admitted heavy use; at the time of the incident, he faced pending charges related to and was involved in planning to steal from video arcade machines using screwdrivers. Barry Allen, also 19, sustained a to the back and fully recovered. His criminal history included an for chain-snatching, for which he was on ; he later violated and was incarcerated. James Ramseur, 18, was shot twice—once through the arm and into his chest or left side—and recovered fully. He had a lengthy juvenile record and had served a 60-day jail term for thefts in and prior to the shooting; afterward, he was convicted of , , and , receiving a sentence of 8⅓ to 25 years. Darrell Cabey, 19, suffered the most severe injuries: shot at in the back, which severed his , resulting in permanent from the waist down and associated brain damage requiring over a year of hospitalization. He faced charges for armed robbery—allegedly using a to hold up three men and steal cash and jewelry in on October 13, 1984—but these were dropped due to his condition; he too had a prior arrest record and was part of the group carrying screwdrivers for a planned . All four victims were high school dropouts with criminal arrest records and were reportedly en route to commit a involving sharpened screwdrivers when they confronted Goetz.

Goetz's Flight, Surrender, and Initial Statements

Following the shooting on , 1984, Goetz exited the subway train at the 14th Street station and fled the immediate area. He rented a and drove to , where he burned his jacket and dismantled his .38-caliber revolver, scattering its components to dispose of evidence. Goetz evaded capture for nine days, during which he avoided returning to his apartment and maintained a low profile amid a massive police manhunt. On December 31, 1984, Goetz surrendered voluntarily to police at the , station, identifying himself as the suspect in the subway shooting and providing a written note explaining his actions. Authorities confirmed his identity through fingerprints and returned him to that day. He faced immediate charges including assault and unlawful possession of a , though charges followed later. In two extended videotaped interviews conducted shortly after his surrender, Goetz confessed to the shootings and detailed his rationale, emphasizing rooted in perceived imminent threat. He admitted carrying the unlicensed illegally for approximately three years due to repeated encounters with , including prior muggings that left him wary of subway dangers. Goetz recounted the youths surrounding him, one requesting five dollars, his refusal, and their subsequent aggressive —such as leaning in and grimacing—which he interpreted as signaling an impending and , prompting him to draw and fire preemptively. Goetz's statements included admissions of to neutralize the decisively, such as declaring to detectives, "I decided to kill them after all, them all, do anything," which prosecutors later cited as evidence of premeditated excess beyond reasonable . He described firing four shots rapidly at the first three youths, then a fifth at the fourth after observing him reach for something, rationalizing each as necessary to prevent harm based on his assessment of their menacing demeanor rather than any overt weapon display. Goetz maintained throughout that his actions stemmed from a survival instinct honed by New York City's crime environment, rejecting characterizations of and insisting he had no racial animus.

Criminal Charges and Grand Jury Indictment

Following his surrender to police on December 31, 1984, Bernhard Goetz was initially charged with assault and attempted murder in connection with the December 22 shooting of four youths on a New York City subway train. On January 25, 1985, a grand jury indicted him solely on weapons possession charges: one count of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon for carrying the loaded .38-caliber revolver used in the shooting, and two counts of fourth-degree criminal possession for two additional unlicensed firearms found in his apartment. The grand jury declined to return indictments on the attempted murder or assault charges related to the shooting, reportedly influenced by evidence suggesting Goetz acted in self-defense against perceived threats from the victims, who had criminal histories including prior robberies. Public reaction, including criticism from victims' advocates and elected officials who argued the decision undermined prosecution of acts, prompted Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. to convene a second . Beginning deliberations on March 14, 1985, this panel reviewed additional evidence, which described as having a "substantial impact," though specifics remained sealed under rules. Goetz declined to testify before it. On March 27, 1985, the second grand jury returned a 10-count indictment against Goetz, comprising four counts of first-degree attempted murder (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25), four counts of first-degree assault (Penal Law § 120.10), one count of first-degree reckless endangerment (Penal Law § 120.25), and one count of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon (Penal Law § 265.03). He was arraigned the following day in New York State Supreme Court before Acting Justice Stephen G. Crane and released on $5,000 bail pending trial. The weapons possession charges from the first indictment were consolidated with the second.

Trial, Verdict, and Sentencing

Goetz's criminal trial began on April 14, 1987, in the New York State Supreme Court in , presided over by Judge . He faced 13 felony counts, including four counts each of in the second degree and in the first degree, two counts of in the second degree, and weapons possession charges. The prosecution argued that Goetz's actions exceeded justifiable , citing his post-shooting statements about intending to "murder" the youths and his additional shots after the initial volley. The defense maintained that Goetz reasonably feared imminent deadly harm based on the youths' aggressive demands for money and movements suggesting a robbery pattern common in 1980s subway crime. After six weeks of , including ballistic , accounts from the four victims, and Goetz's own statements, the deliberated for nearly two days before reaching a on June 16, 1987. Goetz was acquitted of all and charges, as well as criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, with the determining that his use of met New York's justification standard under Penal Law § 35.15. He was convicted solely of third-degree criminal possession of a , a class D , for carrying an unlicensed .38-caliber loaded with hollow-point . On October 20, 1987, Judge Crane sentenced Goetz to six months in jail, five years' , a $5,000 fine, 200 hours of , and mandatory psychiatric evaluation and treatment. The prosecution appealed the lenient jail term, arguing it fell below the one-year minimum for a class D ; in 1989, the Appellate Division, First Department, vacated the sentence and mandated at least one year of incarceration. Goetz ultimately served eight months at before release.

Civil Litigation Outcomes

In April 1996, a civil jury in found Bernhard Goetz liable to Darrell Cabey, the victim rendered paraplegic by a shot to the back during the incident, awarding Cabey a total of $43 million in damages. The jury rejected Goetz's claim, determining by a preponderance of the evidence that his use of was reckless and outrageous, distinct from the higher "beyond a " standard applied in his prior criminal . This included compensatory damages for Cabey's permanent physical impairments, medical costs, and lost earnings, alongside substantial to punish Goetz's conduct. Goetz, who testified during and maintained his actions were justified amid perceived threats from the youths, possessed limited assets at the time, including modest holdings, which constrained practical enforcement of the judgment. No settlements or payments from Goetz to Cabey were publicly documented following the verdict, and Goetz reportedly faced financial difficulties thereafter. No civil suits resulting in judgments were filed or resolved against Goetz by the other victims— Canty, Barry Allen, or James Ramseur—despite their injuries from the shooting.

Public Reaction and Debates

Widespread Public Support for Self-Defense

Public opinion polls conducted shortly after the December 22, , shooting revealed substantial approval for Bernhard Goetz's actions, framed by many as legitimate against perceived threats in a high-crime environment. A Washington Post-ABC poll from January 1985 found that 54 percent of Americans approved of the shooting, with 46 percent disapproving, amid widespread awareness of the incident affecting 86 percent of respondents. Similarly, a New York Times poll indicated majority support overall, with 56 percent of white New Yorkers and 45 percent of black New Yorkers viewing Goetz favorably, reflecting concerns over subway safety where muggings had surged, with over 3,500 felonies reported on the system in alone. By early 1985, national surveys underscored broader endorsement of principles in such scenarios. A March 1985 poll reported by showed a majority of supporting Goetz, with 75 percent indicating they would personally use if similarly confronted by potential robbers. A contemporaneous New York Daily News-WABC-TV survey of 505 residents found 51 percent approving Goetz's conduct, compared to 40 percent opposing it, attributing much of the backing to frustration with ineffective policing and rampant urban violence, including a 1984 subway crime rate that had prompted riders to avoid the system. Goetz's portrayal as a amplified this sentiment, with supporters sending thousands of letters praising his resistance to what they saw as predatory behavior. Media accounts highlighted an outpouring of donations to his legal defense fund, exceeding $100,000 from individuals nationwide who viewed the shooting as a necessary response to systemic failures in deterring youth crime, given New York City's 1984 felony arrests topping 400,000 citywide. This support persisted despite debates, as polls like those from showed approval ratings holding steady or rising in the weeks following the event, driven by narratives of Goetz thwarting an imminent assault based on the youths' aggressive approach and demands for money.

Criticisms of Vigilantism and Racial Bias Claims

Critics of Bernhard Goetz's actions contended that the shooting promoted vigilantism by endorsing private citizens' use of deadly force against perceived threats without awaiting police intervention, potentially eroding public trust in law enforcement and inviting chaotic street justice in a high-crime environment. Organizations such as civil rights groups warned that glorifying Goetz as a "subway vigilante" could normalize excessive responses to minor provocations, as evidenced by post-acquittal initiatives like the Disciples of Justice's black-led subway patrols on June 22, 1987, aimed at deterring similar incidents through community monitoring rather than firearms. These concerns were amplified by commentators who argued that Goetz's preemptive firing—after the youths asked for $5—exemplified disproportionate vigilantism, irrespective of the victims' subsequent admissions of intent to rob him. Allegations of racial bias centered on the racial dynamics of the encounter, with Goetz, a , shooting four teenagers aged 15 to 20, prompting claims that his response stemmed from rather than imminent danger. Activists including Rev. protested the incident as racially motivated profiling, organizing demonstrations that framed the as an emblem of systemic fear of youth in urban spaces. Such assertions drew on Goetz's post- statements, including his taped confession referencing past muggings and a desire to "give them something," which critics interpreted as evincing animus toward minorities, though polls revealed stark racial divides in public perception: approximately 55% of whites versus 71% in broader samples viewed his actions as justified . These claims persisted despite the victims' criminal histories—three had prior arrests for offenses including —and their own accounts of surrounding Goetz aggressively, factors that trial evidence substantiated but which bias allegations often downplayed.

Media Coverage and Portrayal Biases

Media coverage of the 1984 New York City subway shooting by Bernhard Goetz was extensive and polarized, with outlets rapidly dubbing him the "Subway Vigilante" during the manhunt following the December 22 incident, a label that emphasized extralegal action over his self-defense claim and contributed to framing the event as emblematic of urban vigilantism rather than individual peril. Tabloid newspapers such as the New York Post and New York Daily News portrayed Goetz sympathetically as a folk hero responding to rampant subway crime, using sensational language to describe him "whipping out" his gun against "thugs" and linking his actions to popular vigilante archetypes like those in the film Death Wish. These publications marginalized the four Black victims—Troy Canty, Barry Allen, James Ramseur, and Darrell Cabey—by labeling them "street toughs" with criminal records, aligning coverage with widespread public fears of urban decay and minimal exploration of the victims' perspectives. Elite outlets like and adopted a more nuanced but often racially charged framing, highlighting tensions in and questioning Goetz's reasonableness through passive constructions that positioned him as an anti-hero while emphasizing the victims' youth and the incident's potential to exacerbate divisions. Coverage in these papers frequently invoked coded racial descriptors such as "youths" for the Black assailants, reinforcing perceptions of them as inherent threats in a crime-saturated environment, yet also critiqued Goetz's post-shooting statements—such as his intent to "hit animals"—as evidence of , despite lacking direct proof of racial motivation beyond the demographics involved. This approach prioritized societal implications over empirical details like the victims' prior convictions (e.g., Canty's record and Ramseur's armed robbery charges), which were underemphasized initially in favor of narratives about vigilantism's risks. Biases in portrayal were evident in the media's selective sourcing and amplification of racial conflict, with mainstream coverage post-verdict in 1987 interpreting Goetz's acquittal on major charges as a setback for interracial trust, as articulated by Black leaders and civil rights advocates who viewed it through a lens of systemic injustice rather than the legal standard of reasonable fear. While tabloids mirrored public sentiment—polls showing majority New Yorker approval of self-defense amid 1984's 2,000+ subway felonies—elite media's focus on potential racism and moral panic over excessive force diverged, often relying on police leaks and anonymous witnesses that later proved inconsistent, such as initial reports of screwdrivers as weapons. This disparity reflected broader institutional tendencies in 1980s journalism to frame interracial urban violence with an emphasis on white aggression, sidelining causal factors like the assailants' approach demanding "$5" and Goetz's documented prior muggings, thereby skewing public discourse toward condemnation of individual agency in high-crime contexts.

Controversies

Reasonableness of Self-Defense Claim

Goetz maintained that he reasonably believed the four youths—identified as Troy Canty, James Ramseur, Darrell Cabey, and Barry Allen—posed an imminent threat of and potential when they surrounded him on the southbound No. 2 train near 14th Street on December 22, 1984. According to his testimony and initial statements to police, Canty approached first, demanding "$5," which Goetz interpreted as the start of a coordinated based on his prior experiences with three separate assaults in , including one involving a . Goetz described the youths' demeanor as menacing: they moved to encircle him, with physical movements suggesting readiness for violence, such as reaching toward their pockets or waistbands, in an environment where subway muggings often escalated to stabbings or shootings without visible weapons. Under New York Penal Law § 35.15, is justifiable if a person reasonably believes it necessary to defend against imminent unlawful or to thwart a like , which inherently involves actual or threatened ; the statute requires an objective assessment of what a in the defendant's circumstances, including personal history and situational context, would perceive. The reasonableness of Goetz's perception was bolstered by contemporaneous crime data: New York City's subway system in 1984 recorded an average of 38 felonies daily, including frequent robberies where victims were beaten or killed, contributing to widespread public fear and avoidance of the transit system. Goetz's decision to fire first—striking Canty in the hand and chest, then Ramseur and Allen as they reacted aggressively toward him, and finally Cabey, whom he viewed as still participating despite being seated—aligned with a reasonable anticipation of escalation, as no de-escalation was possible in the confined train car without risking immediate attack. Victim accounts conflicted: Canty conceded under cross-examination that his testimony varied, initially describing a non-threatening request for money but admitting inconsistencies that undermined claims of mere panhandling; Ramseur and Allen similarly downplayed aggression, yet their criminal histories—including Ramseur's prior robbery conviction—provided circumstantial support for Goetz's fear of felonious intent. No weapons were recovered from the youths, but New York law does not require visible arms for a reasonable belief in deadly threat during a robbery attempt, particularly given documented cases where concealed knives or improvised weapons turned muggings lethal. Critics of the claim, including some legal scholars, argued that Goetz's actions exceeded reasonableness due to the disproportionate response—especially to Cabey, who was reportedly seated and non-confrontational—and potential influence of racial stereotypes, positing that a "" standard should not incorporate subjective biases amplified by urban crime patterns disproportionately involving young black males. However, the 1986 in People v. Goetz rejected a purely subjective test, emphasizing objective reasonableness while allowing juries to weigh the defendant's knowledge of specific risks, such as the 1984 subway's status as a high-crime venue where demands for money routinely preceded violence. The trial jury's on and charges in 1987 effectively validated Goetz's belief as reasonable under the circumstances, finding insufficient evidence that he acted with intent to kill absent justification; this outcome reflected empirical alignment between his perception and the causal reality of subway confrontations, where hesitation often resulted in victim injury or death. Goetz's own statements post-shooting, including a recanted detail about approaching closer before firing, introduced minor evidentiary disputes but did not negate the core threat assessment supported by witness observations of the youths' encircling behavior. In New York, the use of deadly physical force in self-defense is governed by Penal Law § 35.15(2), which permits such force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to defend against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force that could result in death or serious physical injury, or to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of specified felonies including , forcible , or . This provision requires both a subjective belief by the actor that deadly force is warranted and an objective assessment that the belief is reasonable under the circumstances, as interpreted by the . The statute imposes a before resorting to if the knows they can do so with complete personal safety, unless the confrontation occurs in their or place of . In settings like a subway train, retreat may not be feasible due to spatial constraints or the presence of bystanders, potentially justifying without prior withdrawal if the other elements are met. must be proportionate; it cannot exceed what is reasonably necessary to counter the perceived threat, and the bears the burden of producing evidence of justification, after which the prosecution must disprove it beyond a . In the context of urban confrontations during the , courts evaluating reasonableness consider factors such as the defendant's prior experiences with , the demeanor and actions of the aggressors, and the immediacy of the threat, but not merely the actor's subjective fears detached from objective indicators like weapons or aggressive movements. The 1986 Court of Appeals decision in People v. Goetz emphasized that a must determine both whether the defendant actually perceived an imminent threat warranting and whether a reasonable person in the same situation—with due regard for the defendant's background—would have held the same belief. This two-pronged test rejected purely subjective standards, ensuring that self-defense claims are not validated by idiosyncratic paranoia but by circumstances a prudent observer would deem threatening.

Broader Implications for Urban Crime and Citizen Response

The 1984 Goetz shooting epitomized the acute urban crime crisis afflicting in the 1980s, a period marked by escalating violent offenses that included roughly 2,000 murders per year citywide and an average of 38 reported crimes daily on the subway system alone. These figures reflected a broader breakdown in public order, driven by factors such as the crack cocaine epidemic, , and strained policing resources, which left commuters routinely exposed to muggings, robberies, and assaults in confined transit spaces. The incident underscored how systemic failures in deterrence—evident in low arrest and conviction rates for transit felonies—eroded trust in municipal authorities, prompting ordinary citizens to weigh personal armament as a pragmatic against immediate threats. Public reaction to the shooting revealed a latent reservoir of frustration with passive reliance on overburdened , as evidenced by contemporaneous polls showing large majorities of New Yorkers endorsing Goetz's as a legitimate response to perceived predation and a potential signal to deter future aggressors. This sentiment aligned with empirical patterns of victimization, where subway riders reported heightened vigilance and informal self-protection strategies amid documenting thousands of annual felonies underground. The event catalyzed national discourse on the viability of citizen-initiated defense in decaying urban cores, challenging prevailing narratives that prioritized over decisive action and highlighting causal links between unchecked criminal and proactive individual countermeasures. In the realm of citizen response, the Goetz case amplified arguments for expanding legal tolerances for in self-preservation scenarios, particularly where environmental cues—such as group encirclement and demands for money—signaled imminent harm in high-risk locales. While critics framed such acts as , empirical support from victim surveys indicated that many urban dwellers, scarred by prior encounters, viewed armed readiness not as extralegal overreach but as a rational to policing deficits, with the shooting serving as a stark of how could eclipse deference to institutional monopolies on violence. This dynamic presaged shifts in public attitudes toward self-reliance, though it also exposed tensions between immediate threat neutralization and broader societal costs of eroded deterrence.

Legacy

Influence on Crime Policy and Subway Safety

The 1984 subway shooting by Bernhard Goetz intensified public and political scrutiny of rampant crime on subways, where felonies including robberies and assaults numbered over 7,000 annually by the mid-1980s, contributing to widespread fear among riders and a decline in ridership to historic lows. The incident, occurring amid a citywide rate exceeding 2,000 per year, symbolized the perceived failure of existing policing strategies, which had ceded control of subway spaces to criminals, resulting in unchecked muggings and violence. Public polls immediately following the event revealed strong support for Goetz's actions, with over 50% of New Yorkers viewing the shooting as justified , underscoring frustration with lenient enforcement and ineffective deterrence that allowed repeat offenders to prey on passengers. Mayor , while condemning as "animal behavior," acknowledged the deep-seated fear driving such responses and directed increased police patrols on subways to address the crisis, aligning with observer attributions of subsequent short-term crime dips to heightened transit officer visibility. This immediate reaction included discussions on bolstering the understaffed , which numbered around 3,000 officers but struggled with coordination and resources; by April 1985, city and transit officials began drafting merger plans with the NYPD to streamline operations and enhance response capabilities, though full integration occurred in 1995. Some analysts credited the Goetz case itself with a psychological deterrent effect on potential criminals, as anecdotal reports suggested muggers became more cautious in the ensuing months. Longer-term, the shooting contributed to a broader shift in discourse, highlighting the need for proactive strategies over reactive tolerance of disorder, which presaged the "broken windows" approach adopted in the 1990s under Police Commissioner . This framework, emphasizing aggressive enforcement of minor infractions to prevent major crimes, dramatically reduced subway felonies—from peaks of thousands in the 1980s to under 3,000 by the mid-1990s—through tactics like graffiti removal, crackdowns, and dedicated anti-crime units, transforming the system from a symbol of to a safer public space. The event thus underscored causal links between permissive policies and escalating violence, informing empirical justifications for data-driven policing that prioritized citizen safety over concerns of overreach.

Goetz's Subsequent Life and Public Role

Following his on and charges in June 1987, Goetz faced a separate state trial on illegal possession, resulting in a conviction in April 1991 and a sentence of three and a half to seven years; he served approximately eight months before release on parole. Post-incarceration, Goetz largely withdrew from public life, focusing on personal inventions in electronics and maintaining a reclusive existence in , though he occasionally surfaced in media for interviews reflecting on the shooting's legacy. Goetz pursued minor political ambitions, running as an independent candidate for in the election, where he garnered negligible support, and later for Public Advocate in 2005, again unsuccessfully; his campaign materials referenced the subway incident as emblematic of urban needs. He advocated publicly for marijuana legalization, including an in 2013 for allegedly selling plants without a license, which he framed as against prohibitive drug laws. Goetz also appeared in low-budget films and television segments, such as a 2004 interview, discussing themes of and . In recent years, Goetz has reemerged sporadically to opine on subway violence, criticizing what he views as prosecutorial overreach in cases echoing his own, including labeling the 2023-2024 trial of Daniel Penny for the death of Jordan Neely a "political trial" and "BS" driven by ideological bias rather than facts. He resides in , where he is locally known for rehabilitating and feeding injured squirrels in , an activity he describes as a therapeutic response to urban disconnection. These engagements underscore Goetz's enduring, if peripheral, role as a symbol in debates over and , though he avoids formal or organized advocacy.

Parallels to Modern Subway Incidents

The 2023 incident involving Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely on a F train drew explicit comparisons to the Goetz shooting due to shared elements of civilian intervention against perceived threats in confined subway spaces. Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man with a of mental illness and prior arrests, entered the train on May 1, 2023, removed his shirt, and began shouting threats including statements like "I'm gonna kill you" and references to stabbing passengers, creating widespread fear among riders. Penny, a 25-year-old former Marine, along with two others, subdued Neely using a restraint after passengers expressed alarm; Neely died from compression of the neck and chest, ruled a by the . Prosecutors charged Penny with second-degree and , but a acquitted him of the former in 2024 while deliberations continued on the latter, reflecting debates over the reasonableness of force amid threats. Parallels to Goetz include the racial dynamics—white defender confronting black aggressors—the justification of imminent danger in a high-crime environment, and polarized public reactions, with polls showing majority support for Penny's actions among New Yorkers citing subway safety concerns. A March 14, 2024, shooting on a A/C train at Hoyt-Schermerhorn station further echoed claims in subway altercations. During an argument between a 32-year-old shooter and a 36-year-old victim, the latter drew a , leading the shooter to wrestle it away and fire once, critically wounding the aggressor in the torso. Surveillance footage corroborated the sequence, prompting Eric Gonzalez to cite "evidence of " and decline charges against the shooter on March 15, 2024. This case mirrored Goetz in involving a passenger preemptively using a against an armed or escalating threat, underscoring New York's legal threshold for under Penal Law § 35.15, which permits it when one reasonably believes it necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury. Unlike Goetz's multiple shots at unarmed youths, the single discharge here aligned more closely with verified aggression, yet both highlight persistent vulnerabilities in subway cars where escapes are limited. Another parallel emerged in a June 2023 Queens subway stabbing, where Jordan Williams, 37, fatally stabbed 25-year-old Jason Williams during a dispute on an E train; charges were dropped on June 28, 2023, after evidence, including video, supported against the attacker's advances with a bottle and punches. These incidents collectively illustrate a pattern: post-2020 surges in subway assaults—up 32% from 2019 to 2022 per NYPD data—prompting civilian responses that invoke Goetz-era fears of unchecked predation, despite overall crime declines since 1990 peaks. Legal outcomes vary, but they reinforce scrutiny of New York's strict "duty to retreat" doctrine in public transit, where spatial constraints often preclude flight.

References

  1. A Grand Jury has indicted defendant on attempted murder, assault, and other charges for having shot and wounded four youths on a New York City subway train.
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.