Jury Action on Subway Shooting

A Manhattan grand jury had the good sense to decide that Bernhard Goetz was justified in using the force that he did in defending himself against four thugs on a New York subway.

The same grand jury had the poor taste to indict Goetz on charges of criminal weapons possession. In other words, it’s OK to defend yourself in New York, just so long as you don’t get caught with the means and/or capacity to do it.

Add one more to the list of asinine results stemming from anti-gun laws.

GLENN B. JACKSON

Orange

Whenever I’m on a visit to California, as I am now, I elicit sympathy and commiseration on having to live in New York City. I am a very senior female, 76 years old, born and bred in New York City, and I have the same fears of all other people living in large urban centers today. So I tread warily, with a sharp lookout for potential trouble-makers.

But now that an indictment was not preferred against Goetz I shall go in real fear. In the same news coverage of the jury proceedings it was noted that no charges were leveled against the four muggers and that Goetz had the right to defend himself with violence. Against “no charges”? Surely a contradiction in terms.

Thus we now have two choices: (1) the potential dangers in our decaying society, (2) the real dangers of an unleashed vigilantism with a court-sanctioned permit to all citizens, both stable and unstable, to arm themselves and to use these arms with impunity.

I’ll take my chances with the first choice any time, and I will add that Goetz supporters who allowed their fears and anger to blunt their intelligence and reason had better not visit New York. It will be too dangerous. It won’t be so safe in Los Angeles either!

LEONE ADELSON

Pacific Palisades

The focus of the Goetz indictment demonstrates the warped sense of priority in the American legal system. The jurists did not seem to consider the possibility that even a properly registered gun can be used irresponsibly. Undeniably, the Goetz case merited serious attention even before the legal status of his firearms was made known.

Indicting Goetz on gun charges alone is analogous to arresting an armed robber, not because of his crime, but because he failed to knock properly before entering.

MICHAEL BAUR

Los Angeles

I’m not sure if I’m going about this correctly--sending a letter to a newspaper--but I’ve heard so much about Bernhard Goetz and his “vigilantism” that I can no longer just sit here silently.

First off, there is no justifiable reason for blasting someone’s spine loose for attempting to rob you of $5, $50 or $500--provided you have some type of assurance that money alone will be the extent of your loss. Nor is there any reason to blow the brains out of the burglar intent on stealing your color television--as long as you know the figure lurking in the darkness of your living room isn’t there to slit your throat and rape your daughter. The question is, how do you know? And, if somehow alerted, when to take what action?

For the record: I am presently in a San Diego jail serving a sentence for burglary to which I am unequivocally guilty. When I imagine the reaction--the fear, the anger--of my victim had anyone actually walked in and interrupted my “property crime,” I envision Bernhard Goetz frightened and--although in the midst of fellow passengers--alone in the defense of himself on that subway car. Although I knew I was after their money only, how could they know?

For the many who find it easy to sit back in the comfort and security of their living-room recliners and endlessly recite the right or wrongfulness of Goetz’s actions, allow me to bring one important but often overlooked fact to mind: the perpetration of any crime is always a very personal experience, involving a distinct set of circumstances for both victim and victimizer. In such a moment of individual fear it is unreasonable if not impossible to gauge the “acceptable” reaction of the victim. And there is nothing more personal than waking up to a stranger in your bedroom.

Or for that matter, shifting this paper aside and finding three well-sharpened screwdrivers aimed at your throat.

LESTER R. JONES

San Diego

There are so many worried about the overreaction of Bernhard Goetz. Where are they when the police overreact and get away with it? You have just had the police shoot to death a man who was trying to show them that the bulge in his pocket was a can of hair spray. Down in Santa Ana here we have several police killings each year of people who are not armed.

When the adrenalin of some cop flows and he shoots someone he is rewarded with paid days off. Here Goetz gets imprisoned and no sympathy. He also must pay a lot of money for bonding and lawyers.

Here is my candid opinion about the New York punk that is disabled for life. He most likely would have been a burden to the taxpayers for life anyway, either on the relief rolls or many jailings in prisons, which is also a lot of expense. Goetz didn’t cost taxpayers on that one but may have caused the other three to change their life plans and get out of the mugging business and take up honest work.

HANK STRICKLAND

Santa Ana

If Bernhard Goetz had been a black man who shot four white thugs (two of them in the back) and left one of them paralyzed, do you think the grand jury would have refused to indict him for attempted murder or assault in the first degree? Would he have become a public hero?

Not on your life.

PAT CASEY

Hollywood

So black leaders are demanding an investigation as to “whether Bernhard H. Goetz violated civil rights laws when he shot four black youths who harassed him on a subway.”

What about Goetz’s civil right to ride the subway without being mugged? The black leaders conveniently forget to mention that Goetz’s assailants demanded money, had criminal records, and were carrying sharpened screwdrivers.

RICHARD ROSENTHAL

Westminster