Jump to content

Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Contributors - please give the page number on your book references

A recent edit states "The defense theory of how Cabey ended up in the seat was..... hit by the fourth shot....... with the fifth shot being the shot that missed." Then it just gives the Lesly book as a reference, without stating the page number. I don't think this sentence is true and doubt the Lesly book said that..... could you give the page number in the Lesly book where this is stated? Same on the Fletcher book - can you give the page number when its used as a reference? To my recollection Slotnick wasn't concerned which exact shot hit Cabey, but emphasized that Cabey was shot once, was standing when shot (although incorrect), that all shots happened very quickly, and that "You don't look to bad, here's another" didn't happen.

To use a lengthy book as a citation without giving a page number is just plain unacceptable. A brief newspaper article doesn't require that of course. - Bernie Goetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.28.134 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Every Lesly or Fletcher citation already gives the page number as a comment immediately following its closing </ref> tag. --CliffC (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"Whether Cabey was struck by the fourth shot or by the fifth was critical to Goetz's claim of self defense; this issue was fiercely contested at trial.[5] Medical testimony said that such an injury would render the lower half of Cabey's body instantly useless. According to the prosecution, the fourth shot missed; then Goetz shot a seated Cabey at point-blank range with the fifth. The defense theory of how Cabey ended up in the seat was that he was standing when hit by the fourth shot, then collapsed into the seat due to the lurching and swaying of the train; with the fifth shot being the shot that missed.[4]"
Maybe, where are the page numbers for the above 2 references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.160.3 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, "Every Lesly or Fletcher citation already gives the page number as a comment immediately following its closing </ref> tag." Edit the section to see them. --CliffC (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Shooting - citation needed on shooting stance

In the Shooting section it states Goetz "assumed a two-handed combat stance". This statement is not cited. It should be cited (Time Magazine?) so the process can be started to challenge it. If it is not cited within a few weeks I'll remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.182.224 (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted the ""two handed shooting stance." If this graphic detail was true it would be widely covered in the prosecutor's papers and the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.24.236 (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote links usually add valuable insight, and they are as valid a source as a newspaper or a book, often better. They can be challenged. No source should be considered perfect - particularly in this case (in this case it seems newspapers or books often get quotes wrong). Many Wiki articles should have a quote section or quote links..... the Pope... Leonard Cohen .... the Wizard of Oz. To repeat, direct quotes are often better than a newspaper article or a book. And they give the article an encyclopedic tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.11.217 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Will someone please fix the link to the 1st article reference?

Enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.14.179 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the article got a great compliment (from as retired librarian and newspaper editor). http://lohwoman.blogspot.com/2009/12/memory-bank-december-22.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.52.121 (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sequence of shots with Cabey shot on the fifth shot

"According to the prosecution, the fourth shot missed...." This version doesn't make much sense. Just try it in a simple re-enactment. Can the writers of "Cabey shot on the fifth shot" give a straight forward sequential description of the shots with timing as is done on "Cabey shot on the fourth shot"? Suggestion: Simply describe the proposed sequence so it can be logically evaluated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.67.39 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The prosecution's version requires the 3rd shot to hit. But is it logical that the most difficult shot, the third shot - behind Goetz - would hit a target, and THEN a much easier shot (the fourth shot) would miss? Try a serious re-enactment, this version is just...stupid. The prosecutor's version was just a theory and was not based on any credible testimony. Also the prosecutor was trying to convince everyone no mugging was taking place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.244.125 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yankee are very weird.

After surveying the scene following the initial four shots Goetz saw Cabey sitting on a bench, unhurt, trying to pretend he wasn't involved in the incident. Goetz approached him and fired a shot which severed his spinal cord.

In any country of the world this kind of premediated attempted murder would carry life in prison or even capital punishment. How could he get away with less than a year? - 10:59, 26 October 2005 195.70.32.136

hear, hear -- fires four shots and then a fifth just to make sure? fuck this asshole. - 02:49, 7 November 2005 68.63.125.229

Did you even read the whole article?

I'm not sure why ..."speed shooting (pulling the trigger before the sights are aligned on the target)." is in the article. The author give weight to this being somehow worse than just saying "He shot as quickly as he could, given that he felt threatened by the fact he was outnumbered." Besides, in all my years of shooting I've never heard of the term "Speed Shooting" used in just this way. With a small gun used for self protection at the distance he was shooting, aiming is not a factor; you just point in the direction of the assailant and pull the trigger. Some small guns do not even have sights on them since they are somewhat unnecessary at close range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.47.231 (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Premeditation, public opinion, and some media conduct

A few sites on the internet state “a subway employee who witnessed the shooting confirmed Morgenthau's suspicion that Goetz had been looking for trouble.” This information is from a NY Daily News interview with the subway employee published prior to the 2nd grand jury. At the criminal trial just prior to testifying this subway employee blurted out “I never said those things in the paper.” The Daily News fabricated fundamental facts and statements in that article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.10.29 (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

rumor published in the New York Times ?

"In the immediate days after the incident, rumors spread that Goetz was threatened with sharpened screwdrivers. This rumor was published as fact in several newspapers, including the New York Times."

Is this statement accurate? I could not find the Times article stating this, so I'm not sure. Note Goetz turned himself in 9 days after the incident. The previous statement: "Goetz did not say he was threatened with a "sharpened screwdriver", although this was reported in some media." might be more accurate. Can someone clarify this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.10.29 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for 70.198.45.81

The Cabey shot(s) are explained in good detail, as are all the shots, read it closely, what fuller detail could you want? Maybe this will help: Note during the shooting Goetz was forgeting every shot and concentrating on the next shot. He had visual and audio distortion after the first shot, claimed not to hear or feel the kick of the gun after the first shot, lost count after the second shot ("speed and the count ...... initially 4 vertical bars"), forgot about the third shot, didn't know the gun was empty on the "6th shot", and didn't regain normal vision and hearing until seeing the 2 women after the shooting. A victim under an adrenaline rush is not criminally responsible (unless you're a New York liberal!). Goetz tried to shoot Cabey again because Cabey was MOVING while sitting on the subway seat (the other three muggers were lying still on the subway floor). "You don't look so bad, here's another" was a thought pattern in Goetz's mind; a person is incapable of speach while in the combat mode. Keeping track of only 5 bullets and four targets while shooting might sound easy, but is not. You basically can't count targets AND bullets if you are completely focusing on the targets, which is what must be done for responsible shooting. (Note that no innocent bystanders were injured even though one of the woman was located BETWEEN Canty and Allen.) And even though the women denied being shot, Goetz didn't know for sure that the two women weren't shot until he heard it on the radio while driving to New England. Adding all these details to the article might just confuse the average reader and probably doesn't hold much interest except for a few experts. Goetz, his lawyer, and everyone else didn't know Cabey was shot once until the criminal trial, how do you want this explained further? Maybe it should be explained further, it was an OUTRAGEOUS situation. Goetz's conduct is explained in minute detail and shouldn't need further explanation, but the prosecutor's conduct does. There should probably be some more stuff about the 2 grand juries, for the law students. Also the 2 federal civil rights investigations. Maybe Ramseur's phony kidnapping or the plutonium water scare should be added to the article - it might be interesting to many.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.19.252 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC) – — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.121.208 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wording at beginning of article

Near the beginning of the article the phrase "young men" is presently used, but it is continually being changed, to "black", "Afro-American", "muggers" or even "youths". For different reasons some authors want race mentioned early in the article. Some think it is correct to state race here, some think it is correct not to state race here. Some who want race stated want "black" instead of "Afro-American" and visa-versa. There is some validity to all points of view. Why not go with "young men", as it is now? Its accurate and race is not being avoided in the article.

The article has come a long way. The inclusion of all significant shooting versions with explanations has finally stopped the continual re-editing of the article by those who are convinced their version is correct. A very educational article, nothing like it anywhere else. Quite an accomplishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.165.194 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yankees

" With a small gun used for self protection at the distance he was shooting, aiming is not a factor; you just point in the direction of the assailant and pull the trigger. "

The above statement is incorrect. You should read a book on basic combat shooting, or try shooting a revolver quickly at several different targets in front of and behind you at distances up to 6 feet. Aiming is crucial, but the trigger is pulled prior to aiming. Note the extremely rapid speed shooting described by Goetz can only be done with a revolver and not an automatic pistol. With an automatic pistol the gun is aimed and then the trigger is pulled as you described. As for premeditation, note that Goetz rented the car after, and not prior to the shooting.

"Aiming is not a factor"!! God help us if this guy ever does shooting in a crowd. Most americans are idiots because they think life is like television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.209.219 (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Most anti-Americans who come onto WP attempting to promote their heavy-handed agenda are idiots because they think we care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.148.46 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the basic lessons you learn the first day in shooting class or on a range is if you don't aim, you miss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.176.90 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased and unethical media

If this is how the media informs the public on high publicity cases, what about smaller stories? As an example how the media handles "race" cases see the following link: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=531 . Interesting gun control angle @ http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=6560889&nav=0RYv . One of the few accurate sources at this time seems to be the brief Wikipedia article - Newsom and Christian were not sexually mutilated or dismembered (while alive, no less!), despite what almost all internet sources say.

Unless you tune in to the local Knoxville news, you are most likely hearing about this heinous crime for the first time. Think about the first week of the Duke case: not the case itself, but the public reaction; the screaming media, the protests, Jackson, Sharpton. Can you honestly say it wouldn't have been the same if five white guys kidnapped, raped, and tortured a young black couple? Why does one black college student rate such vastly greater media and public attention than two white college students who were victims of a much more hideous crime? Could it be (gasp!) media bias? Instead we are fed every last detail of Paris Hilton, Nicole Simpson, etc. And it also seems James Byrd and Rodney King and Don Immus fit the print, but Channon Christian does not. Most people haven't even read an accurate account of the Tawana Brawley case - they should see the Wiki article.

Why were the Goetz hoodlums not prosecuted for perjury, but Mark Furman was? Tawana Brawley? As for the damage done by a misinformed public, a black columist wrote after the O.J. Simpson verdict that the jury was giving payback for Rodney King, the Goetz case, and Howard Beach. What a disgrace.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.234.113 (talk • contribs)

The problem in this case wasn't just some biased media. The media can only go with what information it has. If the prosecutor only releases a small amount of erroneous evidence (from a mountain of contradictory evidence), what can the media do but go with what it has?

But a lot of mainstream media could be criticised for not disseminating correct information once it was available. For example, the NY Times wrote an editorial that Goetz should be tried because the case was an opportunity to educate the public about self defense situations. When information was made available that contradicted their previous beliefs, they just dropped the subject. It apppears educating the public wasn't that important after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.48.210 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just added a link to http://www.triroc.com/bg/tvguidebgoetz.pdf BUT WHERE WERE THE FACTS? Its stated purpose was to judge the media's performance, and not Goetz. Its a great read for those interested in media manipulation of public opinion; imagine the effect that a number of articles like that would have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.186.107 (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Whoever did the recent editing (Repliedthemockturtle), you did a great job. The article reads much better now. I bet you're a professional writer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.185.242 (talk • contribs) 15:58, November 3, 2007

would it be racism if....

Would there be cries of racism if Goetz were unarmed, and was "successfully" mugged by the four black men? Would it be racism if Goetz was unarmed, resisted being mugged and was then beaten by these four men? To death? Would either event have even made network news? Food for thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.223.46 (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Prosecutorial misconduct

Probably a section should be added on prosecutorial misconduct. According to the references here's how the 2nd batch of indictments happened: 1. The prosecutor releases information to the public that Cabey is shot twice. 2. The prosecutor applies for a 2nd grand jury to a judge who mistakenly believes Cabey is shot twice, with information from Troy Canty that he alone approached Goetz and that no robbery was taking place. The judge is not informed about contradictory eyewitness statements. 3. The public is told the prosecutor has "champagne evidence", but is not told the witness is Troy Canty. 4. Canty, at the 2nd grand jury, testifies the 2nd shot occurred about 10 seconds after the first shot. Sounds outrageous! But the grand jurors are not told about numerous eyewitness testimony that all shots occurred in about one second. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.111.55 (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're the person who purports to be Bernie Goetz, right? --CliffC (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its me. Good to know someone fussy like you is following the article. I don't mind you being fussy with me as long as you are with others. I think adding information about prosecutorial misconduct is 100% appropriate, either in the article or in Talk. People have a right to know what was going on.

I spent 3 hours being interviewed by William Shatner for a TV series called "Aftermath." Wouldn't have done the interview except its him, it was the most advanced filming set I've seen. I describe the 5 shots in detail for about 10 minutes. Then I do a slow motion re-enactment exactly as described in the article: Cabey shot on fourth shot. Then I do a fast re-enactment with a quality reproduction revolver. Shot location can be exactly determined by the clicks of the revolver (we didn't use ammunition). All shots precisely hit the 4 imaginary targets as described, with the 3rd shot going wild of course. Draw time + 5 shots = 1.35 seconds. Pretty decent but I explained I can shoot faster when I'm scared and having an adrenaline rush. They probably will air the fast re-enactment in slow motion. But if they don't air the fast re-enactment in slow motion it can still be seen in slow motion by anyone recording the program.

I haven't had a TV for a few years and don't want one. I'll go to a friend's house to see and record the program so the fast re-enactment can be posted on U-tube, but don't know if I will be able to pull it off. You and others also might want to see and record the program. - BG (172.129.74.177) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just got word that "Aftermath with William Shatner" is premiering on August 2nd, 2010 on the A&E Bio channel ... and the Goetz incident is the first episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.233.111 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 10PM ET/ 9PM CT/ 11PM PT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.140.252.47 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A must read: http://www.kuselfdefense.com/self-defense-training/the-bernie-goetz-story-25-years-later/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.68.113 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I just saw the Shatner interview. Quite good, it could have been a little better, it could have been a lot worse. They filmed me for 200 minutes but only aired about 30 minutes. They got in some good stuff on vegetarianism and squirrel pictures, and the shooting of course, but they left out the fastest shooting recreation with a fast draw and all 5 shots. I come across as somewhat chilling, particularly the shot to Shatner’s chest, but he asked me to do it. Anyway there is no nice way to shoot somebody. They show me shooting 5 shots in maybe 1.3 seconds, but without the fast draw. I’ll contact the producer this week to try to get a DVD of the shooting recreation of the fast draw with all 5 shots (1.35 seconds total) for Utube. I thought the ending was kind of dumb, possibly acted - “that’s the difference between me and you” - since the necessity of shooting when you are closely surrounded was demonstrated to the NY media and settled early on in 1985, but I guess Shatner or the editor was unaware of that. - BG (172.162.100.6) 22:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an update on getting better film footage of the shooting recreation for Utube. This talk paragraph can be deleted later. I SENT TO J. ANGIER (PRODUCER): "I just want the few seconds where I do a fast draw followed by 5 shots, and about the 20 seconds preceding that where I show exactly where the shots will be placed." REPLY: "Sorry about that Bernie ... Unfortunately, a lot of good stuff gets cut out during the final editing process. I'll try to see if I can track down all the original footage, but it's extremely difficult to get one's hands on the stuff that didn't make air." So we might have to settle for what was aired; I will know by the end of August. My estimate is the timing between the 5 shots that were aired was about 1 or 1.05 seconds, and these shots accurately show how the five shots were fired. The fast draw shooting Shatner in chest was maybe 0.3 or 0.35 seconds, so the total time would be maybe 1.35 or 1.4 seconds. Again note I handled the gun for several minutes while we talked, but they edited out the talking, not really accurate, but it makes great TV, very Dexterish. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.60.12 (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I won't get the footage of the shooting recreation of the fast draw with all 5 shots. The Shatner show was far better than most media but its incomprehensible they didn't air this footage. What was aired does give viewers a pretty good idea of how the shots were fired, but its not worth posting on Utube. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.173.206 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Goetz, I hope you eventually read this. I just want you to know, I'm one of those on your side. I feel you had every reaso yourself, and I'm particularly disgusted that hypocritical asshole sharpton turned it into a race issue.

What Goetz said

Goetz's exact words were "They tried to rob me and I shot them." Thats on the record. Some might think they were robbing him, some might think they were not robbing him, some might think Goetz had insufficient justification. Others opinions are NOT important if the sentence says "Goetz said". If it says "Goetz said" or "he said", then what should be stated is what GOETZ said, not others opinions of what happened or a legal interpretation of what he said.

A while ago the article said "who were intent on mugging him". I and others thought this was biased and it was changed to "who he said were intent on mugging him". Now its been changed to "who he said were about to rob and perhaps harm him". Thats even more in error than before. He didn't say that. Again Goetz's words were "They tried to rob me." He did not use subtle legal phrases like "intended". If the article says "Goetz said" then what should be stated is what he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.117.31 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What "record" are we talking about? We go by what reliable sources, like the NY Times, report. Read my last edit summary, please, re footnote 2. I changed the lead to get rid of the contentious "intent on..." that seems to trouble some people, and quote directly from a reliable source already in the footnotes. Your purporting at similar IP addresses to be Goetz himself doesn't give you any special standing here, IMO if true it gives you less, because you have a conflict of interest. --CliffC (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The NY Slimes a "reliable source"?! Come on, give us all a break, will ya? 67.170.215.166 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Baloney. Can you please state what Goetz said in quotes then? The article should report facts. If Goetz said "They beat me", then the article should say "who he said beat him", whether its true or not. If Goetz said "They intended to rob me", then the article should say "who he said intended to rob him", whether its true or not. Any statement can be evaluated by others, but the others should be given as close as possible to the exact statement. If Troy Canty said the 2nd shot occurred up to 10 seconds after the 1st, that can be evaluated too. Words do matter. Again, please state what Goetz said in quotes. That should solve the problem. If you don't, I will.172.130.117.31 (talk)BG 172.130.117.31 (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)BG But quote marks should not be needed. Are you willing to put your words in quotes? 172.130.117.31 (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)BG

I think you may be confused by not having consulted the article cited in footnote 2, which says in part His testimony contradicted Mr. Goetz's interpretation of the incident: that the four teen-agers were about to rob and perhaps harm him. We don't usually include direct quotations in the WP:LEAD section because it's intended to be a summary; exact quotes (assuming they are as reported by a reliable source) go in the article body. --CliffC (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, you don't have to include exact quotes in the beginning, but exact words are often important, and there is some difference here. Your last edit was a step backwards. Maybe its not that big a deal since the article conveys accurate information later. I'd rather you go back to what you wrote there for the past year. Try to understand what goes on when people report "he said". Prior to one sentencing I spoke for under 2 minutes (the judge turned red). The next day the NY Post reported my exact words in quotes. The NY Times reported "he said XXXXX", where XXXXX was a fancy synopsis of what was said using fancy words. This synopsis actually was longer than my exact quoted statement...... and it did not convey some important points, surprise. Later I was told my statement was too inflammatory for them. Which is better reporting? Which would you want for reporting? Which is the better source? 172.130.117.31 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)BG

He said, tried to rob him

i take some exception with the POV of the first line. He was found not guilt of the shooting. He WAS charged with weapons possession and lost in civil court but the shooting its self was in self defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch590 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Media manipulation, public misinformation, and interesting facts

The "Yankee are very weird" post is a perfect illustration of public misinformation on the 1984 subway shooting. A reporter who covered this case 20 years ago informed me that the media manipulation by an unethical prosecutor’s office, the NY Daily News, and the NY Times was the worst he had ever seen. The extremely biased partial release of evidence by the prosecutor’s office (Goetz’s confession of shooting Cabey twice) should have resulted in the prosecutor being censured or disbarred. The first grand jury exonerated Goetz. Months later a second grand jury was opened after Goetz: (1) stated that New York government was “incompetant, inept, and corrupt” (2) advocated a large increase in in the number of civilian pistol carry permits. The prosecutor’s office and the highest levels of the New York courts were aware that Cabey was shot once, but encouraged the racially divisive view that Goetz was looking for trouble, that a helpless Cabey was shot twice, and that the shooting was racially motivated. Proof that the authorities knew Cabey was shot once is shown in the decision People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96 (N.Y. 1986) where it is stated Cabey is shot once (but is still slanted in the worst possible scenerio against Goetz as the last shot). The public mindset that Cabey was shot twice was so strong at the time that Goetz’s attorneys assumed this was a mistake by the Court of Appeals, and the media also assumed this, and Cabey being shot once in the left side was not reported.

The NY media considered Rev. Sharpton dishonest and ignored him prior to1985, but the NY Daily News, the NY Times, and NYC TV channel 7 put Rev. Al Sharpton on the map in order to get a “legitimate” black leader’s commentary against Goetz. This backfired as Al Sharpton was expected to disappear after the Goetz case, but he did not, and Sharpton became a big name in NY politics. This has actually improved the cesspool of NY politics greatly: previous to Al Sharpton unethical white politicians would shamelessly exploit the race card, now Al Sharpton has forcefully displaced them, but he has less overall credibility.

At the criminal trial after the lead prosecution witness on the train testified and was totally disredited (Sally Smithern, a prostitute in the adjacent car !), the prosecutor was asked by the defense team why he was in effect throwing the truth seeking process out the window. DA Waples replied “My job is to get convictions.” All but two other witnesses at the criminal trial supported Goetz: one at the other end of the car who reported he saw and heard Goetz shoot Cabey in the stomach after the initial shooting; and James Ramseur, a convicted rapist who staged his own kidnapping in an attempt to vilify Goetz. All other witnesses said they could not count the shots, but that all the shots occured in the suprisingly brief time of about one second. It might be noted that Goetz, as part of an unsuccesful pistol carry permit application, had significant combat shooting training at a pistol range a few blocks from where he lived.

In the discussion by a contributor above it was stated “you just point in the direction of the assailant and pull the trigger." This is incorrect and would probably result in innocent bystanders being shot. As Goetz stated “A shooting like this requires total concentration. After the first shot, you totally forget the first shot and concentrate only on the second shot. The second shot is all that exists. After the second shot you totally forget it and concentrate only on the third shot. Etc.” This explains why Goetz, who was cooperating with New Hampshire law enforcement, was unable to give exact details of where the shots were fired other than the first shot in Canty’s chest and the last shot “in Cabey’s stomach.” (It could be difficult for people who have not been in close combat to understand this.) The exact detailed description of the shooting given in the Wikipedia article was only determined about a week prior to and during the criminal trial by Slotnick's team and Goetz, who were given the Brady evidence at that time.

For those interested in how public opinion is manipulated by some media, see: http://www.triroc.com/bg/tvguidebgoetz.pdf BUT WHERE WERE THE FACTS? Note the article's stated purpose was to judge the media's performance, and not Goetz. Imagine the effect that a number of articles like that would have. For those seriously interested in media manipulation of public opinion it is worth finding and buying that whole issue of TV Guide. One wouldn't expect a publication like TV Guide would be political, but other than the TV listings the whole issue is manipulating public opinion, cover to cover. It has to do with America's self image, and is much easier to understand 25 years later. The issue also gives a great feel for what America was like 25 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.40.130 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

70.198.45.81Whoever wrote the above commentary seems to have a very thorough grasp of the facts of the case. I would urge you to include a segment in the article fully explaining the true facts of the case relating to the "here have another" portion of the incident. 1) That Cabey was hit only once (many people never bothered to follow the trial phase, they just remember the initial news.) 2) Whether the rush and trauma of the incident blocked Goetz's memory of the "have another" trigger pull. 3) Did Goetz know, or claim to know, if there was a bullet in the gun for that "have another" trigger pull? 4) That Goetz purportedly pulled the trigger the second time because, as retold in media interviews long after the incident, he thought Cabey might have still been able to attack him at that point; that Goetz didn't know how badly Cabey was actually injured. 5) That Goetz and his lawyer didn't know Caey sustained only 1 shot until 18 months after the shooting when the medical and ballistic evidence was formally discovered by the defense team. 09:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)~

This is an excellant addition to the topic. The fact that Al Sharpton's career is a result of the Goetz incident is revealing.

Thanks for the work. Oh...and Bernie...if you are reading this...I have 2 words for you...."hollow points". And 2 more words..."Thank you". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Until the criminal trial, most media reported Cabey was shot twice. After the criminal trial most media just dropped it, and did not correct this misinformation. 172.162.93.111 (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)BG

How to refer to the four men Goetz shot?

The first sentence says that Goetz is "best known for shooting four young men who he said tried to rob him in New York City" (emphasis mine). The next paragraph starts: "Goetz fired an unlicensed revolver five times, seriously wounding all of the would-be muggers". I don't see any record of the four young men being found guilty of attempted robbery of Goetz, or of all four confessing that they were planning to mug him, so I don't think they can be described as "would-be muggers". Shouldn't this last reference be changed to something factual (as opposed to an opinion), such as "all four of the young men" or "all four of the alleged muggers" or "all four of the teenagers"? Note that I am not claiming that they were not (or were) planning to mug him, just that it was never proven. Espertus (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

They ADMITTED they were going to rob him. So yes, they get described as would-be muggers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.16.22 (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim that all four admitted they were going to rob him? If it exists, it should be prominently included in the article. Espertus (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

They were robbing him, everyone knows that they were robbing him. The jury that tried Goetz knew they were robbing him, that's why he was allowed to shoot them. So I personnally don't think it is necessary to cite that they were robbing him. With that said, it actually has been cited in the article[1]Racingstripes (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Saying "everyone knows" is not proof. I read the article you cited, and it only said that one of the youths said that the four were planning to rob him. Nowhere did it say that all four admitted that. The first two references in the article say the opposite, that one of the youths, Troy Canty, said the opposite. Unless someone produces a reference that the four all admitted to or were convicted of attempted robbery of Goetz, the description of them as "would-be muggers" should be removed. See Wikipedia:BLP. I'll happily withdraw my objection if someone provides the level of proof required by the Wikipedia policies. Espertus (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Racingstripes its better if the article says “alleged” instead of “would-be”. I think probably the most important purpose of the Wiki article is not only to present under-reported facts, but to show readers how some media misinformed the public. Yes, virtually everybody who knows the case in great detail concludes a mugging was occuring. And Espertus’ standard that all four admitted to or were convicted of attempted robbery is unreasonable. All four have to admit to it? Be convicted? How? The corrupt DA gave them immunity for attempted robbery. But its important the article have a neutral stance for credibility and I request you leave the wording “alleged”. More importantly, this Wiki article was somewhat hijacked by 12.196.37.227 with his recent December edits, which I’ll address in the following section.172.129.219.173 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sequence of shots, Time Magazine (April 8, 1985)

I think the article was somewhat hijacked by 12.196.37.227 with his recent careless (or possibly bad faith) December edits. How can an article that was written prior to the criminal trial be considered definitive? And yet this Time Magazine shooting description was added near the beginning of the article prior to the other described shooting sequences. It just confuses and misleads most readers. (Also a minor detail: How can Canty’s criminal trial testimony use the Time Magazine article as a reference?)

When I talk about media manipulation I refer to http://www.triroc.com/bg/tvguidebgoetz.pdf (TV Guide, July 27, 1985) and http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965495,00.html?iid=chix-sphere (Time April 8, 1985). These articles should be studied by those interested in media manipulation and besides being inaccurate are obviously biased: According to Time, “sneer... act intoxicated... have a slinky, slouched walk”. Wow. The Time shooting description is garbage of course. Normally I think a section like this should be deleted, but instead I’m going to put it as the 4th version of the shooting in the SEQUENCE OF SHOTS section. That makes it easier for readers to judge its significance, and also has the benefit of making readers potentially aware how public opinion is or can be manipulated in the United States.

BTW, here’s an interesting tidbit for those interested in the Time Magazine reference: The hostile media dropped writing about my father’s legal problems as soon as I told the NY Daily News and the NY Times how the case was resolved (a payoff). [redacted]’s attorney made a $5000 contribution to a state senator, a new trial was ordered, but never came. So then it became the news no longer fit to print. 172.129.219.173 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

James Ramseur dead

James Ramseur, one of the youths who was shot, died of an overdose on the 27th anniversary of the shooting.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/goetz_thug_dead_rKrhwXIbt3lWeYJSf2mLHM? utm_campaign=OutbrainA&obref=obinsite

He had just finished 25 years in prison for rape. Does the fate of the four who were shot belong in the story?71.230.201.203 (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Contesting reported facts by Time Magazine (April 8, 1985)

The intended purpose of Wikipedia using reliable sources is to present truthful and accurate information. In the United States the media is accurate and truthful on perhaps 99% of the stories with which they have no personal invovement. But on the other one percent just about anything goes. However many people take as accurate whatever “reliable media sources” state, because they are accurate so much of the time. Note Wikipedia requires statements to be sourced, but “reliable sources” do not have this higher standard. Being prosecuted, and without the internet, it was not possible for me to refute misinformation in 1985. Today that has changed, although challenging all the reported misinformation out there would be a daunting task. The Time Magazine article is a good place to start.

The paragraph in question starts with “Goetz said”, which indicates to readers Goetz was the source of the stated information. It then states that Goetz “rose and partly unzipped my jacket where the revolver was concealed, and plotted my "pattern of fire" for shooting them .... Goetz then asked Canty what he had said, and he repeated his statement. At this Goetz unzipping his jacket the rest of the way, drew the gun, and shot....”

These reported graphic details in Wiki based on Time Magazine are nonsense, yet they are apparently attributed to Goetz, and imply somewhat more prolonged and aggressive conduct on my part prior to the shooting. Goetz never have stated he unzipped his jacket while or after standing, and did not do an interview with Time Magazine. All conversation with Troy Canty was while Goetz was seated. The gun was carried in a holster in the waistband, under a shirt and jacket, and unzipping the jacket would not have provided access to the gun. Goetz drew the gun by lifting his shirt and jacket, as demonstrated on numerous occasions to both the police and media.

In addition, the Wiki "Sequence of shots, Time Magazine (April 8, 1985)" isn't even an accurate version of the Time Magazine article. Can someone else more accurately rewrite this section based on the Time Magazine article? I'm not willing to dignify the inaccurate Time Magazine article by writing a Wiki section based on it.

Hence I’m going to mark these reported Wiki and Time Magazine facts as [dubious – discuss]. I believe these reported “facts” about unzipping th jacket actually came from Troy Canty although they are apparently attributed to Goetz. Some might take the position this is trivial, or Time Magazine is a “reliable source” while Goetz on the other hand have less credibility because of “a conflict of interest”. Now is a good time to resolve these details, while he and the Time Magazine author are still alive. 172.130.63.43 (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC) ... Someone removed the [dubious – discuss] notations. No big deal; readers can judge. On March 26 I asked for clarification on Wiki: Talk:Richard Stengel for the source of the contested statements above but as of yet have to reply. 172.162.66.210 (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC) BG

Screwdrivers

The screwdrivers on two or three of the four seem to have disappeared from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.38.87 (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If the four were begging, there would be no reason to surround Goetz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.38.87 (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Second paragraph of Bernhard_Goetz#Early_reports: "Paramedics and police did find a total of three screwdrivers on two of the men" --CliffC (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I stupidly did not read the article properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.43.109 (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The sharpened screwdrivers that were carried by the angelic adolescents are of no concern and should remain omitted from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.114.202 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

CliffC, a lot of reliable sources recently reported they were carrying sharpened screwdrivers. What say you? 172.129.27.88 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)BG The article would be better if almost all the minor edits of the last few months were reverted. These poor edits were done in good faith by people with limited familiarity with the subject but who believed the last "reliable source" they read. Also, the first article source http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/goetz/goetzchrono.html shouldn't even qualify as a source and hence detracts from the credibility of the entire article. 172.129.117.180 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)BG

There is a great difference between screwdrivers and sharpened screwdrivers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.114.202 (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article makes it clear that screwdrivers being pulled was just one of several major pieces of misinformation (like Cabey shot twice) from so called reliable sources. And some newspapers still print that today, thats just the way it is. Media, unlike Wiki, does not have to source their statements. The Wiki article is pretty good as of now. 172.129.39.207 (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)BG

Early Life - draft dodging

There is a sentence which is in the Early Life section and reads as follows: In Connecticut, Goetz faked[original research?] mental illness to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam War. I can't see a source for it, so I'm going to remove it. 86.45.62.89 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wording at beginning of article

Great article. The consensus of serious authors is there is little or no doubt that an attempted robbery was taking place. However could it add to the credibility or perceived fairness of the article if the attempted robbery was presented as highly probable instead of a known fact? The article states "four young men who tried to mug him". Using the phrase "allegedly tried" would probably be a step backwards because the word "allegedly" does not convey a high degree of probability. Can anyone suggest a word or phrase that could be used here that is stronger than "allegedly" ? 172.129.50.6 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Bar

I put the wording "alleged muggers" at the beginning of the article for the purpose of neutrality, but would prefer better wording to indicate the high probability an attempted mugging was actually occurring. If someone has better word than alleged please use it.

lightning fast Barry Allen

This phrase

  • The second shot hit lightning fast Barry Allen in the upper rear shoulder

Don't read more in to it than the wording. It has nothing to do with "The Flash", whoever that is (a comic book character?). Its an exact quote from the source and all it means is Barry Allen reacted and ducked exceptionally quickly. Too bad you haven't seen a re-enactment of the shooting. 172.163.6.32 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC) BG

Barry Allen is the secret identity of a super speed comic book character. If it is really an exact quote, then I will back off, but to me it seems to be 'poetic license', rather than an objective description of events. Jokem (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You use your comic book knowledge and don't even read the article sources, but think others use 'poetic license', rather than an objective description of events?? Just check the basic facts; there are many sources other than those in the Wiki article. Barry Allen is the name of the second person shot as anyone who read about the case knows. Jeez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.33.58 (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I found the reference. I misunderstood the reference to See: Bio & letters page. I thought the link WAS the Bio & letters page. Thank you for correcting me in such a polite and courteous fashion. Comments like yours help encourage more people to use Wikipedia and enhance the experience for everyone. Jokem (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Goetz & squirrel rescue

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Goetz appears not to be licensed as a rehabilitator. Licensed rehabilitators specializing in squirrel care acknowledge Goetz's participation and enthusiasm, but have generally expressed a desire that he be kept from engaging in hands-on rehabilitation. Squirrels in Goetz's care have frequently been brought to senior rehabilitators for emergency treatment, have been found to be suffering from malnutrition and other forms of abuse. Goetz has been heard to express the need to punish squirrels "when they are bad". A number of senior licensed wildlife rehabilitators have documented problems with Goetz's treatment of squirrels in a complaint to the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, the appropriate oversight agency. Some rehabilitators refer to a propensity for some people to claim to love animals but also having a need to punish them as "the Bernie Goetz syndrome". -- ([User talk:RRassendyll|talk]]) 17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This is just some nonsense by a whacko, Vicki Puluso, and maybe her friend Arina. Vicki thinks everyone should listen to her because she has a pathetic NY rehabilitator's license, which is about as difficult to get as a being a public notary. I think she's just jealous of my better relationships with squirrels. She doesn't know half what I know about squirrels, and gets enraged when anybody feeds squirrels anything but her latest discovery (recently she discovered Fox Valley, a decent product). I feed squirrels all kinds of nuts, avocado, corn, grapes, salad, fresh tree branches, watermelon, and anything they like. For liquid food I give them a mixture of 2/3 half&half and 1/3 Pacific hazelnut milk. For tiny infants I add another 25% water to this mixture. If they are growing or have a calcium deficiency I give them a 50/50 mixture of Peter Gillham's CalMag and real maple syrup (note the CalMag should be mixed with water first and left to stand for 6 - 12 hours). After the last fiasco a month ago when a precious runt died I'm no longer giving any squirrels I come across to any of manhattan rehabilitators associated with Vicki, the others are OK. Also, this Talk section is to discuss ways to improve the article, not Vick's pathetic obsessions. So why don't you take it to the media Vicki? They would love this story if it had any merit. Also where is the link to the blog on the Squirrel Board "Bernie Goetz, animal abuser" where you all describe me stomping a baby bird to death and chopping off squirrel's tails? You all should get therapy. 172.129.57.123 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Bernie Goetz
I think the foregoing paragraph makes the case. As one conversant with current views in the network, I can vouch for the general breadth of discomfort among trained and experienced rehabilitators anent Goetz's approach to small animal rehabilitation. I also know the licensed rehabilitators to whom Goetz refers, and consider them to be go-to people in small-animal rehabilitation; this view is widely shared. Goetz's behavior is sufficiently erratic — and sufficiently high profile — that it has garnered the name "The Bernie Goetz Syndrome": "I love little animals, so I must punish them when they are bad." This syndrome is commonly associated with inappropriate and excessive violence against persons (something already evident in the case of Goetz). I note in passing: Goetz does not have even the state license required for rehabilitation of gray squirrels and is apparently unable to earn it. In my view, this is probably a good thing.--RRassendyll (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
These lies are from a few obsessed obstinute whackos. I feel sorry for squirrels that fall into the hands of some of these manhattan "rehabilitators." I haven't heard anything from the DEP - how does one respond to charges others make in "private communications"? How come I never heard about "The Bernie Goetz Syndrome": "I love little animals, so I must punish them when they are bad" until I saw it posted here a few days ago? Just fabricated nonsense. Unfortunately I introduced Vicki to squirrel care years ago. A lot of my squirrel activity can be seen at http://thenewyorksquirrel.blogspot.com
I do not understand Goetz's comments here. Clearly, well-regarded and very successful small-mammal rehabilitators are not whackos. The question is one of fact: Well-regarded, state-licensed small-mammal rehabilitators, at least one a senior (Class II) rehabilitator, take the view that Goetz, who has not been able to get a license, is generally not competent. That is a part of the story. Wikipedia is about the whole story, not just the bits that please the subject of the story.--RRassendyll (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"Clearly, well-regarded and very successful small-mammal rehabilitators are not whackos." Oh? Well regarded... by who? Successful? Where have you ever heard "I love little animals, so I must punish them when they are bad." Where have you ever heard of "The Bernie Goetz Syndrome"? Google this nonsense. 172.162.71.201 (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC) BG

Also a few minor technical details that should have been noted above: (1) Peter Gillham's CalMag is now known as Natural Vitality CalMag. Its just calcium gluconate with magnesium. I mix by volume 1 unit CalMag powder with 1 unit water and let it sit for several hours. The high acidity can be neutralized with a little baking soda/water mixture. Then add some maple syrup. Recently they came out with a raspberry-lemon CalMag that people tolerate, but squirrels prefer my mixture. (2) Anemic squirrels do well with a little raw egg occasionally in their diet. I mix the yoke and white with an electric mixer, add a pinch of salt, and then use 30% hazelnut milk, 20% raw egg, and 50% half&half. For infants add additional water. (3) Adult squirrels prefer apple cores over apples. (4) Among other things I also feed NYC squirrels lots or fresh raw unshelled peanuts. They are cheap and squirrels like them a lot. 172.162.87.239 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Bernie Goetz

An additional note: I recently had a runt that responded badly to a conventional milk based diet and had a hydration problem. Switching to goat milk + salt and coconut water solved the problem. Its amazing that a small group from manhattan thinks they can dictate to everyone what they should feed their animals. BG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.133.246 (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: (1) The Wild Bird Fund in Manhattan has terminated its relationship with Arina Hinzen. Why I don't know. (2) At 8 PM on Saturday Aug 11, 2012 two DEP officers came to my door and said they “wanted to check on the well being of a squirrel” and could they come in my apartment. One was armed and wore a bullet proof vest on the outside. I told them “Fuck you” while slamming and locking the door. Their purpose was to arrest me - on Saturday night you can't find a lawyer and will be in jail until at least Monday or Tuesday. These are the biased people I am dealing with. 172.162.71.252 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Bernie Goetz

Sorry, but I must add this, having stumbled on a great simple formula. A new baby had the runs so I wanted to give it a rice mixture; rice is known to help this greatly. Mixed half Kozy Shack Rice Pudding and half plain milk, and blended it. Simple, convenient, and everybody loves it. It has it all, egg, sugar, salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.176.194 (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OMG, I'm your biggest fan you old goat --DrBogdanovic (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources needed

IPs are attempting to add material that is sourced to "private communications". That is not appropriate, per policies WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable source. All material added to this, or any, article must be accompanied by a footnote that names a book, newspaper, etc. --Noleander (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, I am peripherally involved in the element under discussion. The problem is Goetz's claims about his squirrel rescue activity; the comment to be included relies on an exchange between the "editor" and a rehabilitator engaged in the complaint against Goetz, involving violation of NYS law, as I understand. I agree, reliability is important; Wikipedia's — erratic? — content is one reason it is considered a dubious source by many of my colleagues. On the other hand, some quite interesting and reliable information is conveyed in one-on-one interchanges — letter, chats over tea, whathaveyou. Such interchanges are considered reliable and appropriate in scholarly writing for publication. Is it your position that reporting that interchange is not appropriate because it cannot be verified? If so, you must wipe out quite a lot of the 1911 Britannica, which were based on either original research or first-person involvement, perhaps?... I think you are trying to make Wikipedia more virtuous than Cæsar's wife; in this instance, you force an unbalanced picture of Goetz.--djenner (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't write the policies ... I just adhere to them. Unless you can find a book or newspaper or CNN broadcast etc that mentions squirrel issues, it cannot go in the article. Period. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The content rules for the 1911 Britannica have no bearing on Wikipedia's sourcing rules. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia as is Wikipedia:No original research. --NeilN talk to me 19:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Djenner: I'm for having a balanced picture. Am I an animal abuser or incompetent, or are we dealing with a few shockingly dishonest whackos who probably shouldn't be licensed? (1) I never said "I love little animals, so I must punish them when they are bad." Can anybody please provide any details on this quote? When was it said? Where? To whom? Nobody can provide any details because its a fabrication. (2) Same with "The Bernie Goetz Syndrome". Can anybody provide the slightest reference on this? 172.162.214.70 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Bernie Goetz

Update: At 8 PM on Saturday Aug 11, 2012 two DEP officers came to my door and said they “wanted to check on the well being of a squirrel” and "can we come into your apartment to look around." One was armed and wore a bullet proof vest on the outside. I told them “Fuck you” while slamming and locking the door. Their purpose was to arrest me - on Saturday night you can't find a lawyer and will be in jail until at least Monday or Tuesday. These are the kind of people I'm dealing with. -172.162.71.252 (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Bernie Goetz

Separate entry for incident and trial?

Long discussions about squirrel-rescuing notwithstanding, I think there needs to be a separate article for the incident and consequent trial. This is especially evident with the "Activities Since the Incident" section which is an update of the four non-notable youths; I'm pretty sure this doesn't belong in the article. Dan40 (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The incident and trial sections are strongly related and intermesh because of the controversy over facts, and the "Activities Since the Incident" is highly relevant also. However I think the "Cultural references" section has little merit and exists mostly to promote various songs which mention the subject..... you don't see other Wiki articles which state irrelevant songs and TV programs naming the subject. 172.162.52.72 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)BG

Unusual formatting of article

What is the justification for the article being formatted in such an unusual and difficult to read fashion?--Jrm2007 (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

70.251.227.249 had a good point about one admitting they were doing a robbery but otherwise he did a lot of editing mostly without knowing what he was doing, a big step backwards. Thankfully Sturmovik undid those edits. But probably the admission of a robbery should be added to the INCIDENT section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.202.216 (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Diagram

A drawing or diagram, showing the events, is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.169.171 (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you would think there would be credible diagrams of the events prior to and during the shooting, but at the time the last thing the New York print media or prosecutor’s office was interested in was a truth seeking process. The gaps in media reporting on this case are enormous despite extensive coverage. Probably the best you will have to settle for as of now is the show Aftermath with William Shatner which is mentioned at the end of the article and is available on cable TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.24.50 (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC) The Wiki article was written despite the majority of "reliable" media sources. Considering that we are lucky to have the article there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.110.29 (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mail on 29/2/2012 had a photo of a carriage, but no further details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.169.171 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The carriage photo links in the article don't convey much. There were many photos of the inside of the actual carriage after the shooting. A link to one of these photos should replace the rather meaningless subway car photo links in the article. These photos were very common on the media in early 1985 but I have been unable to find a link to one. Maybe someone else can.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.40.225 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent arrest

On a note unrelated to the present edit-wars, the final paragraph of this article seems to present a minor WP:BLP-issue. It states that Goetz was arrested for allegedly selling marijuana, but then states the details of the alleged offense as if they were fact. I realize that Wikipedia doesn't require the presumption of innocence that U.S. courts do. Still, the source used (The New York Daily News) says that Goetz reportedly sold marijuana to the undercover officer (my emphasis). I think that we should follow the source. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


Be patient. The reporting on the marijuana arrest is sketchy but major unreported developments are certain to occur in the next few months. The next court appearance is Dec. 18. The Daily News article is crappy but why not consider it good enough temporarily? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.9.86 (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow you. The only change that I have proposed is inserting the word "reportedly". The Daily News article doesn't say "Goetz sold marijuana", it says "Goetz reportedly sold marijuana". Per, WP:BLP, we should follow the source. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, then its no big deal and nothing should be changed for now. The reported information so far does not make complete sense but this is not that important because not only is it a minor issue, but the paragraph on the recent marijuana arrest is certain to be significantly modified over the next several months as more information is made available. For now its probably best to just accept the reported information as "sketchy" with the expectation that better information will follow in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.9.86 (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not optional. The word "reportedly" needs to be added here. If you're Goetz, or someone connected to him, I'm unsure as to why you would object to this. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I have no objection.172.162.9.86 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)BG

I have inserted the word "reportedly" into the sentence. You didn't specify exactly where you wanted it, so I hope this is sufficient. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but yes, that's exactly what I was requesting. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lets not use weasel words or sources

"Apparently unarmed" is a correct term just as "black" is a correct term. Both have implications. "Black" has greater implications. How can you object to "apparently unarmed" and not object to "black" ? There should be consistency for honesty.

I will revert the citation requests to the Time Magazine shooting description unless you or someone else can explain why they should not be added to this outrageous dishonest shooting description. Can Time Magazine write a shooting description with essentially no valid references? It appears I am the reference in this Time Magazine paragraph but I am not. The Time Magazine paragraph starts with "Goetz said" and ends with "according to Goetz", and almost all readers would assume that everything between "Goetz said" and "according to Goetz" was what Goetz said. However I did NOT say those things between those 2 phrases. Time Magazine did NOT interview me. Readers have a right to know where Time Magazine found its information. Time Magazine can not use Time Magazine as a reference.

I think this issue about "reliable sources" needs to be addressed further by Wiki. 172.162.9.86 (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)BG

Time magazine is a reliable source. It does not have to have footnotes for its articles. As you have a massive conflict of interest please do not edit this article. --NeilN talk to me 08:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if you did not edit this article! If we can't agree lets take this to Wiki arbitration or there will be an endless edit war. Don't try to argue "massive conflict of interest" when you are wrong. I did not do "tag bombing". The Time magazine paragraph is FULL of incorrect statements and is a disgrace to responsible journalism and only incorrect statements were tagged. If Time Magazine goes with these statements, where did they get them from? Not me! Troy Canty? To a large degree. The NY Daily News? Maybe. The Time Magazine paragraph, instead of IMPLYING the reference source is Goetz when it actually is not, should give the actual reference. For example, if Troy Canty said I unzipped my jacket at certain times or concealed my gun in a certain way, or stood at certain times, and Time Magazine wants to print that, its OK with me but Time Magazine should say Troy Canty said that and not imply I said that. And if Time Magazine is used as a reference and describes shooting details, they should not imply I am the reference if I am not. Where did Time Magazine get that information? Not from me. If they got it from a NY Daily News article than they should say that. If they got it from Troy Canty (a reliable source?) than they should say that. If you don't understand lets go to arbitration. Can others weigh in on this? 172.162.9.86 (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)BG

Threatening to edit war on an article in which you have an obvious conflict of interest is never a good idea. If you follow through on that threat, you will almost certainly be blocked from editing Wikipedia any further. LHM 08:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So lets talk about it. I obviously don't want an edit war. Answer my questions if you can. You might need a little time to digest things; I don't know how much you are on top of this article. Besides, a few days could give others time to weigh in on this and we should get other opinions. I want the best possible standards for Wiki and am sure you want the same. I consider Wiki superior to most other printed media but there is always room for improvement. We are in the bronze age of computers, not the golden age. Standards for sources are evolving.

BTW, do you think I am the source of almost all the info in the Time Magazine article? I am the source of perhaps 10% of it. 172.162.9.86 (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)BG

Please DISCUSS this. If you don't want to discuss this more here, how do we start arbitration? And again I would like time for other opinions to weigh in here.

Regarding apparently unarmed - "Goetz expressed a belief that none of the young men had been armed" - so why add the word "apparently"? Black is not a weasel word, apparently is. --NeilN talk to me 14:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The subject of the article is doing exactly what he's supposed to do: discussing the issues he has with the article on the talk page. I think he has a legitimate concern if he says the Time Magazine article makes implications that aren't correct. WP:BLP is still a policy and living subjects of articles should be able to discuss factual inaccuracies and have their concerns addressed. It would also be nice if someone had pointed him towards OTRS so he could open a ticket. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Goetz has been editing this article for years and he shouldn't be doing things like this to the article. See the Times Magazine section below. --NeilN talk to me 17:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring to remove reliably sourced info isn't "doing exactly what he's supposed to do." It is, in fact, the opposite of what he's supposed to do. LHM 04:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on the note in the section below, I would consider both this and the Time Magazine matter settled. --NeilN talk to me 04:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Undesirable pictures added to article

Pictures might add to the article, but these pics don't. A meaningless map of New England? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.134.215 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Photos of current stations (not what they looked liked in the 1980's), meaningless maps, and photos of a lawyer and judge. I've removed them. --NeilN talk to me 14:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

How to find old free images?

I tried adding images in this article, but they have been removed as irrelevant and/or misleading. If they are not worth being re-added, where can else I find such relevant image? --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I share your frustration. There were many good pictures in the 80's media but they don't seem to be around now. That was before the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.8.216 (talk • contribs)
Actually, many of them belong to the press, so copyright belongs to them. George Ho (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Time Magazine paragraph

Neil- Please study and check the Time Magazine paragraph and decide if it meets the INTENT of the Wiki standard for reliable sources. There is no rush on this, a week or a month would be fine. And time would let some of the significant authors or others weigh in on this. I am very familiar with this subject and should be able to answer or give good sources to any questions you or others might have. But if you then conclude the Time Magazine paragraph is advocacy journalism, or deliberately misleading, or irresponsible journalism, then I expect you would want it removed as a source or this noted in some way and hopefully addressed. The reporting on the 1984 subway shooting was highly political and there was a great deal of advocacy journalism, just like the recent George Zimmerman case (mentioning Zimmerman is to explain this if you are a young person and was not following the Goetz case 29 years ago). Please do not drop this.172.162.9.86 (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)BG I will check this TALK page 2 or 3 times a week to see if you have any conclusions.

BTW, the lead author of the Time Magazine article in question (28 years ago) is now Editor in Chief (or similar title) at Time Magazine. How do think a writer rises to the top at a place like that? On just writing ability? I can't imagine what the rat race would be at a place like that.

I'm not interested in entertaining your conspiracy theories especially with your conflict of interest. The intro states, "Following are four versions from significant or reliable sources describing the sequence of shots:" which is exactly what the Times paragraph does. If there are criticisms of the Times version appearing in independent reliable sources please provide sources. --NeilN talk to me 14:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I suppose there is value to using the Time Magazine article as a significant source, so its not a big deal and I won't push it. The Time Magazine article shows serious readers how BAD some "reliable" sources can be. 28 years ago the world was an uglier place when there was no internet and all there was were these "reliable" sources to convey information to the public. There's no changes I want to do anyway so you can remove the editing restriction on the article. Also, I'm curious about your opinion (if you have one) of the coverage of the George Zimmerman case by some "reliable" sources. Do you think the New York Times, for example, was a reliable source in its coverage of the George Zimmerman case?172.129.34.23 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)BG

I go with what has been decided by the community. For example, the community has decided the NYT is a highly reliable source for non-medical topics so that's my default stance. When discussing a specific use of a NYT source, I think it's up to other editors to show why that specific use is unreliable, not by giving opinions, but by providing criticisms appearing in other reliable sources. --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm happy to drop this. We could delete the 2 long paragraphs above by consent: "Lets not use weasel words or sources" and "The Time Magazine paragraph", or we can let them just expire. Time Magazine's coverage has probably improved anyway. You and perhaps Wiki can consider the NY Times a reliable source on politically tinged issues, global warming, etc. Many do not consider the NY Times reliable in these circumstances.172.162.120.220 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)BG

Two last points: (1) Wiki wants articles to be accurate and truthful and has higher standards than most of the media. One of the most important Wiki standards is neutrality. But on politically tinged cases much of the media (which Wiki uses as sources) are NOT neutral. Most intelligent people understand that the media is often not neutral and it is mind boggling that Wiki does not recognise this. (2) If the highly detailed Time Magazine article was submitted to Wiki by an unknown writer or one of the free newspapers, it would be dismissed as the garbage it is. But because its Time Magazine or a newspaper it gets put on a pedestal by Wiki. But other media won't put Time on a pedestal. Why don't we see the highly detailed Time Magazine shooting description repeated in other responsible media? Because anybody who investigated the shooting knows the Time Mag description is full of errors. 172.129.1.32 (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)BG

So where are the sources that point out these errors? --NeilN talk to me 03:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats the problem with the Time Magazine paragraph - it has no sources for most of the details other than Time Magazine itself. The paragraph starts with a sentence "Goetz said" and ends with "According to Goetz", but everything in between that is not from Bernie Goetz and is not sourced. A reader should be informed of that. Ah, but Time Magazine can write many shooting description details without giving a source and Wiki finds that acceptable because its Time. I deny the information after the sentence "Goetz said" and up to "According to Goetz" and think that information should be sourced to meet a better Wiki standard. Is your position the Time Magazine paragraph is considered reliable only unless another "reliable" source" questions it? On the other hand the Time Magazine paragraph enriches the article in an odd way (by discrediting major media with knowledgeable readers) and I'm satisfied with the article the way it is. 172.129.126.60 (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)BG

Time Magazine is a reliable source. Unless you have other, equally reliable third-party sources that contradict Time, then facts sourced to Time are considered reliably sourced. Lithistman (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
If Time Magazine claims that Goetz made certain statements and Goetz personally states that he did not make such statements, then Time should be considered an unreliable source unless they have something which makes their position stronger than just the word of the magazine versus the word of the subject. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It's definitely not as clear cut as that. While I don't pretend that reporters are paragons of accuracy, I don't believe that a "because I say so" on the part of subjects who may be trying to manage past history should be relied on unquestioningly. We could add something about how Goetz disputes this version if we can source that properly. --NeilN talk to me 21:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Not only is it not as clear cut as that, it's basically the opposite of that. Goetz has a vested interest in painting himself in the most favorable light possible. His simply claiming (as an IP) that he didn't say certain things that a reliable source claims he DID say, is simply not enough to call that source into any sort of serious question. Lithistman (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
If Time Magazine has made a mistake then hopefully Mr Goetz will point that out to them and get them to publish a retraction. If they won't do that I'm sure one of their competitors would happily do so. In the meantime with all due respect to the IP, we are not the place to correct errors in reliable sources. ϢereSpielChequers 08:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • comment from uninvolved editor. If the IP really is BG, I suggest you register an account and verify your identity through WP:OTRS, then at least we can be confident we are dealing with the subject. As for the paragraph in question, once we can confirm that the IP is the subject, we should take a more careful look - one way to balance Time's coverage would be for BG to publish a blog somewhere (perhaps a piece on truth and fiction in the age of Wikipedia) and clearly state BG's version of events and which particular pieces of the Time story they wish to contest. I'm not sure if Time would issue a retraction so many years after the fact, as the reporters notes may be lost by then. But if editors decide that the Time source is reliable for the claim made and relevant to the readers understanding of the events, it would nonetheless be reasonable to post BG's refutation of that source but it can't come from an IP or even a registered user here it must be published on a widely accessible blog where we can be confident of the authorship.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree in all respects. Mr. Goetz can set up a personal blog at no cost and dispute what Time said he said. His denial goes in the article, or we decide not to use what Time said. I'm sure, if he is the unregistered person, that we need to verify his identity and then obtain his denial from a source that he himself creates. We don't function like a newspaper. We rely on secondary sources. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, but I was probably making too big a deal about this and no longer have reservations about the Wiki article. I of course maintain that almost every fact in the Time Magazine paragraph is innacurate and the paragraph is a poor reference, but I also think most people reading this Time Magazine paragraph know its a confused shooting description, so in the balance its good for the Wiki article. In March 2011 I tried to get clarification about this paragraph on Richard Stengel's Wiki TALK page and I emailed him. No response, no big deal. I can set up blog if any one would like that.... can they suggest where since I haven't done that before and I don't use social media.172.162.112.138 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Bernie Goetz

OK, but if you have any further problems, feel free to raise them here or via an email to the OTRS system. Meanwhile, to get your side of the story before the public, why not set up a blog at wordpress.com or blogger.com? They're free. To be used as source material on Wikipedia we'd need to verify that it's your blog and not started by an imposter. I'm sure you can understand that anyone can come to Wikipedia or start a blog and claim they're you. If your blog is mentioned in the media and verified to be yours, that's enough for Wikipedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

3 things: (1) I could set up a blog and then what? Wait for some media to cover it to make it legit? (2) The recent news of my arrest is mostly baloney and should be straightened out soon. (3) When running for Public Advocate I wanted worker power naps. Power naps likely would have prevented the recent Metro-North crash. 172.130.101.129 (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)BG

Then what? It can then be used as a source, within limitations set by policy. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral article lead?

How was "allegedly attempted to mug him" agreed upon. I'm sure plenty of sorces say that, but what other sources describe the events from a perspective more outside of time. From what I remember, the legal system determined that there was no proof he had unlawfuly used his weapon. This would not need to be phrased as an allegation, but rather that he felt threated or whatever wordings can be sourced? Neutralphrasing (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This article lead phrase has been changed many times over the years. Pro-Goetz writers wrote "attempted to mug him". Anti-Goetz writers wrote "who he thought were going to mug him". So "allegedly attempted to mug him" was used as a compromise. Its obvious to most writers a mugging was occurring but this cautious wording seems to work best and anti-Goetz writers can't complain about the neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.252.47 (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"allegedly" has a snide ring. What about "who he said were trying to mug him"? That may be marginally better. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"who he said were trying to mug him" was sometimes used in the past by anti Goetz writers, sometimes with "he" sarcastically italicized. I think "allegedly" is less snide. Most informed writers actually preferred "attempted to mug him" to "allegedly attempted to mug him". There is tension on this wording between apparent truth and neutrality. Its probably best to bite the bullet and choose neutrality as this gives the article credibility. The political left is unhappy (good!) with the information published in this article but they can't complain about the neutrality. Quite a good article and most writers consider it the best article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.53.221 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E6DA1E39F93BA25757C0A960958260
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting/Archive_2&oldid=1078618820"