LOL - I love these comments!

[Lewkowski]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...s?pc=25&sp=175

Reading the comments does my heart good.

A man who was injured by Manhattan subway gunman Bernhard Goetz has been found dead in what appears to be a drug overdose 27 years to the day after the shooting, NBCNewYork.com reported Friday.

James Ramseur, one of four then-teenagers wounded in the notorious 1984 incident, was discovered dead in a Bronx motel room on Thursday, with two empty prescription pill bottles next to the bed. The labels were scratched off of the bottles, The New York Daily News reported.

His death is being investigated as an apparent overdose and as a possible suicide, sources told The Daily News. They said Ramseur, 45, checked into the motel Tuesday and was scheduled to check out Thursday morning.

His body was found by the motel manager who went into his room after he didn't return the keys Thursday, The Daily News said. No note was left.
Ramseur was freed from prison last year after serving 25 years for a rape, according to NBCNewYork.com. He was one of four black teens shot by Goetz on a train on Dec. 22, 1984, in a shooting that earned Goetz the nickname of "subway vigilante" by city newspapers.

Goetz claimed he opened fire because the teenagers were trying to rob him; they said they had simply asked him for five dollars. What is indisputable was that after shooting and wounding all four teens, Goetz ran off of the subway car, fled the city and didn't turn himself in until eight days after the shooting.

Ramseur suffered a severe wound and was in a coma briefly afterward.
The shooting divided New York, with some hailing Goetz as a hero who had stood up against petty subway crime and others calling him a racist.
advertisement


At his trial, a mostly white jury acquitted Goetz of all charges except illegal weapons possession. He served 250 days on Rikers Island.
According to Biography.com, Goetz still lives in New York City and has opened a store called Vigilante Electronics.

[GGT]

Oh yeah, classic Lewk! At Christmastime no less. Gee, what would Jesus do?

Instead of starting a new thread thinly disguised as "people making bad decisions", where vigil ante shooters get their just revenge.... maybe you should respond in your first thread about people and poverty, and their "bad decisions".

[Lewkowski]

This is not even remotely related to the poverty thread.

[GGT]

Sure it is! You claim poverty and crime are all about choices and decisions.

[Aimless]

Wow, I'm not sure if there's anything in this story worth "loving". A draft-dodger gets mugged and feels betrayed by the system so he gets an illegal gun and then, in a moment of great mental distress, shoots four black guys, one of whom later rapes a woman, goes to prison, and then dies almost three decades later. This is a useless Christmas story. Have you been banned from the Turkey or something?

[Lewkowski]

Wow, I'm not sure if there's anything in this story worth "loving". A draft-dodger gets mugged and feels betrayed by the system so he gets an illegal gun and then, in a moment of great mental distress, shoots four black guys, one of whom later rapes a woman, goes to prison, and then dies almost three decades later. This is a useless Christmas story. Have you been banned from the Turkey or something?

The origin of the story is in 1984 Goetz was confronted on the subway. He then took justice into his own hands. Now some say the 4 guys were just "asking" him for money while others say that they were trying to mug him. Given the criminal record and the latest news about the life one of the four made for himself it seems obvious they were trying to rob him.

The best part though? He had shot one of them and the guy was still moving Goetz said to him.

***
Waples noted that two of the victims were shot in the back trying to escape, and another victim, Darrell Cabey, was shot a second time and permanently paralyzed after Goetz said to him, ``You look all right, here`s another.``
***

And he's found not-guilty, flipping awesome.

27 years later the verdict is vindicated. The scum were trying to rob him. And on MSNBC (one of the more liberal networks) you see almost all of the comments coming out in support of Goetz. It truly is the happ, happiest season of the year.

[Loki]

You think permanent paralysis is a proper punishment for robbery?

[Lewkowski]

You think permanent paralysis is a proper punishment for robbery?

Yup. Thought that's not the discussion at hand. If you are threatened by multiple people, can you do what is necessary to end the threat which includes shooting someone who *appears* to be out of the fight? Honestly I can't imagine a possible scenario where I would feel a punishment is necessary for the person who is defending themselves.

[Aimless]

Well, he thinks death is an appropriate punishment for shoplifting toothpaste, so...

[Veldan Rath]

Okay, this is really just a trollling post.

[Loki]

I can't imagine someone lying on the ground with a bullet wound is much of a threat.

[BalticSailor]

I can't imagine someone lying on the ground with a bullet wound is much of a threat.

Have you noticed, though, that the folks Lewk calls "heroes" never actually face any significant threat? It's always some guy who shoots a thief who's already running away, or a robber who's laying on the floor wounded, etc... The "hero" never shoots someone who's attacking him, at least, not during the actual assault.
It's like he's celebrating people taking revenge in an inappropriately severe way on someone who has threatened them in past somehow. Could this be caused by some childhood trauma, perhaps?

[Lewkowski]

I can't imagine someone lying on the ground with a bullet wound is much of a threat.

He might get up and rob again...

He did say he didn't look too bad off...

Either way like I said before - if a private citizen defends himself against a criminal I pretty much give the citizen maximum leeway to deal with it as he sees fit. This creates a deterrence effect for other criminals. In addition society failed to defend the victim in the first place so if he has to take matters into his own hands she shouldn't have to worry about prosecution from society.

[Enoch the Red]

He might get up and rob again...

He did say he didn't look too bad off...

Either way like I said before - if a private citizen defends himself against a criminal I pretty much give the citizen maximum leeway to deal with it as he sees fit. This creates a deterrence effect for other criminals. In addition society failed to defend the victim in the first place so if he has to take matters into his own hands she shouldn't have to worry about prosecution from society.

And if the citizen is mistaken as to the intent of his would-be attackers? What if the attacker did have a criminal record, but was simply asking the citizen for his spare change? Even if the citizen honestly felt threatened by the ex-con, it doesn't mean he has the right to murder him, does it?

On your personal hierarchy of evil, is murder worse than theft?

[GGT]

He might get up and rob again...

He did say he didn't look too bad off...

Either way like I said before - if a private citizen defends himself against a criminal I pretty much give the citizen maximum leeway to deal with it as he sees fit. This creates a deterrence effect for other criminals.

Maybe I decide to chop off his hands, while he's laying on the ground with a gunshot wound. Just to make sure he can't "get up and rob again". Talk about maximum leeway for the citizen, huh. Can I also cut off his gonads so he can't reproduce, just in case his criminality is a genetic trait for sociopathy or psychopathy? Can I claim that as a deterrence for other criminals?

In addition society failed to defend the victim in the first place so if he has to take matters into his own hands she shouldn't have to worry about prosecution from society.

You either need to explain that statement....or admit that you're just a troll.

[Khendraja'aro]

Please, did you not notice that Lewk doesn't care about justice as long as he gets vengeance?

[Ominous Gamer]

Lewk being held accountable, for once, for his trolling posts in the D&D would be an awesome christmas present

[EmperorNorton]

Can we have this thread put into lockdown for being utterly retarded?

[Lewkowski]

Can we have this thread put into lockdown for being utterly retarded?

How is it retarded? Does it annoy you that the bulk of the comments there are siding with the defender and not the criminal? If the criminal didn't want to be paralyzed maybe he shouldn't of tried to rob someone...

[Being]

Jesus doesn't love you. Probably because you don't sincerely ask for forgiveness.

[ImAnOgre]

So, if the perps were trying to rob this guy, is it ok for him to shoot to defend himself?

Georgia law says so, not sure about NYC law. Even if they are unarmed.

"(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another and does not have a duty to retreat when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such otheŕs imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Source: http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_...rch/hb1061.htm

So, if four people are robbing said individual, it's reasonable to believe that they would use threats correct. And four adults beating up another single adult could easily cause great bodily harm.

And who in the world is going to ask for five dollars as a group? Yo man, give ME five dollars vs Yo man, give US five dollars.

Too bad there was no video and audio evidence so we would know for sure.

[Loki]

The point is that the guy shot one of the alleged robbers after the guy was already on the floor with a gun shot wound. Pretty sure he didn't believe his life was in jeopardy at that point.

[CitizenCain]

The point is that the guy shot one of the alleged robbers after the guy was already on the floor with a gun shot wound. Pretty sure he didn't believe his life was in jeopardy at that point.

<sigh>

Look, you people who've never fired a shot in anger really need to stop commenting on it like you have a clue, because you don't, and what you seem to believe is pretty much the opposite of reality. You'll empty a clip in the time it takes any thought to cross your mind, nevermind the fact that the amount of adrenaline running through your veins severely distorts your perception of reality and time in particular. Events that take minutes feel like seconds, and you're acting on pure instinct anyway, so it's not like your conscious mind has any input into the situation once it starts anyway.

This is a major issue for hardened combat vets with years of experience in combat, yet the prevailing opinion here seems to be that some geek from an area of the country where handgun ownership is/was banned should be able to handle a combat situation better than an experienced operator. That's just beyond retarded.

[Khendraja'aro]

<sigh>

Look, you people who've never fired a shot in anger really need to stop commenting on it like you have a clue, because you don't, and what you seem to believe is pretty much the opposite of reality. You'll empty a clip in the time it takes any thought to cross your mind, nevermind the fact that the amount of adrenaline running through your veins severely distorts your perception of reality and time in particular. Events that take minutes feel like seconds, and you're acting on pure instinct anyway, so it's not like your conscious mind has any input into the situation once it starts anyway.

This is a major issue for hardened combat vets with years of experience in combat, yet the prevailing opinion here seems to be that some geek from an area of the country where handgun ownership is/was banned should be able to handle a combat situation better than an experienced operator. That's just beyond retarded.

So, why exactly should we put guns into the hands of people again, when, according to your own statement, those people are barely rational?

[CitizenCain]

So, why exactly should we put guns into the hands of people again, when, according to your own statement, those people are barely rational?

I get it. Why change now? Not like you've ever made an effort to make rational or honest arguments before, so no reason that this year should be any different, eh?

You people?

Yes. As in "you people who have never fired a shot in anger, haven't the faintest idea what it's like and seem to be imagining things to be the complete opposite of how they really are."

Funny how often you (specifically) end up in that general group of "you people," though, innit?

C'mon, seriously, one doesn't need to have fired shots to "have a clue" or make a comment.

I wouldn't have thought so either, but here we are. And I can't help but notice that the utterly clueless and indefensibly wrong comments made about a combat situation (or some approximation thereof) are being made by people whose closest experience with combat is watching CNN coverage of some warzone.

Unless you want to exclude yourself from commenting on any adrenaline-rush moment related to marriage, children, or parenting---because you've not experienced those things first-hand.

Yeah, whatever. When I start comparing the loss of a child or spouse to the disappointment I feel when I spill my drink, you may have something. Until then, I'm not the one talking out of my ass about things I know nothing about.

[GGT]

Yes. As in "you people who have never fired a shot in anger, haven't the faintest idea what it's like and seem to be imagining things to be the complete opposite of how they really are."

Funny how often you (specifically) end up in that general group of "you people," though, innit?

I wouldn't have thought so either, but here we are. And I can't help but notice that the utterly clueless and indefensibly wrong comments made about a combat situation (or some approximation thereof) are being made by people whose closest experience with combat is watching CNN coverage of some warzone.

We weren't talking about a "combat situation". Saying any adrenalin-rush / self-defense / domestic scenario is the same as military combat says more about you than anything else.

Yeah, whatever. When I start comparing the loss of a child or spouse to the disappointment I feel when I spill my drink, you may have something. Until then, I'm not the one talking out of my ass about things I know nothing about.

[GGT]

<sigh>

Look, you people who've never fired a shot in anger really need to stop commenting on it like you have a clue, because you don't, and what you seem to believe is pretty much the opposite of reality. You'll empty a clip in the time it takes any thought to cross your mind, nevermind the fact that the amount of adrenaline running through your veins severely distorts your perception of reality and time in particular. Events that take minutes feel like seconds, and you're acting on pure instinct anyway, so it's not like your conscious mind has any input into the situation once it starts anyway.

This is a major issue for hardened combat vets with years of experience in combat, yet the prevailing opinion here seems to be that some geek from an area of the country where handgun ownership is/was banned should be able to handle a combat situation better than an experienced operator. That's just beyond retarded.

You people?

C'mon, seriously, one doesn't need to have fired shots to "have a clue" or make a comment. Unless you want to exclude yourself from commenting on any adrenaline-rush moment related to marriage, children, or parenting---because you've not experienced those things first-hand.

[Aimless]

This is all well and good but the man himself stated to the police that he said that and shot again.

Although only one shot actually hit??

[Aimless]

Btw, I've been meaning to ask: are intended or threatened actions as bad as the actual actions themselves?

[Aimless]

I was more interested in the punishment aspect--from Lewk's perspective--than in the self-defense aspect.

Re. shooting twice, does it matter? Only one shot hit. Or do his intentions matter? Is "heat of the.moment" a valid defense in that case, if he was capable of thinking that the man needed another shot and then acting on that thought? In the end his own defense seems to have hinged almost entirely on what he actually did rather than on what he thought, felt or wanted. I urge you to not kill people on the tube.