- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 55 year old lifeguard charged with murder after shooting 2 teens in Chicago
Posted on 6/29/25 at 8:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/29/25 at 8:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
No, not correct.
From People v. Goetz:
From People v. Goetz:
quote:
On Saturday afternoon, December 22, 1984, Troy Canty, Darryl Cabey, James Ramseur, and Barry Allen boarded an IRT express subway train in The Bronx and headed south toward lower Manhattan. The four youths rode together in the rear portion of the seventh car of the train. Two of the four, Ramseur and Cabey, had screwdrivers inside their coats, which they said were to be used to break into the coin boxes of video machines.
Defendant Bernhard Goetz boarded this subway train at 14th Street in Manhattan and sat down on a bench towards the rear section of the same car occupied by the four youths. Goetz was carrying an unlicensed .38 caliber pistol loaded with five rounds of ammunition in a waistband holster. The train left the 14th Street station and headed towards Chambers Street.
It appears from the evidence before the Grand Jury that Canty approached Goetz, possibly with Allen beside him, and stated "give me five dollars". Neither Canty nor any of the other youths displayed a weapon. Goetz responded by standing up, pulling out his handgun and firing four shots in rapid succession. The first shot hit Canty in the chest; the second struck Allen in the back; the third went through Ramseur's arm and into his left side; the fourth was fired at Cabey, who apparently was then standing in the corner of the car, but missed, deflecting instead off of a wall of the conductor's cab. After Goetz briefly surveyed the scene around him, he fired another shot at Cabey, who then was sitting on the end bench of the car. The bullet entered the rear of Cabey's side and severed his spinal cord.
1
[/url]Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
And neither was there an actual attack in Goetz. I’m not sure why you feel compelled to argue at this point.
My original point is that the common law concept of self-defense is more than sufficient to justify this shooting. “Stand your ground” is irrelevant. This is amply supported by the Goetz case.
My original point is that the common law concept of self-defense is more than sufficient to justify this shooting. “Stand your ground” is irrelevant. This is amply supported by the Goetz case.
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:02 pm to Riverside
quote:
My original point is that the common law concept of self-defense is more than sufficient to justify this shooting. “
But it's not. One jury from NYC when it was Hell on Earth doesn't invalidate what the common law is.
Proportionality is an important variable, ESPECIALLY if deadly force is used.
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:10 pm to gumbo2176
I'd like to say I'm surprised in 2025 people defending this are justifying shooting when a group of Black people walks by and looks at them
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
First, Chicago is probably more dangerous right now than NYC in the 1980s. In any event, “proportionality” has never been an element of self-defense and it’s not in Illinois. The elements in Illinois are nearly identical to those in Goetz. It will all turn on whether the jury thinks this was a reasonable use of force under the circumstances.
Again, not sure why you feel compelled to argue about this. Your points regarding “stand your ground” are totally irrelevant.
quote:
Thus, consistent with most justification provisions, Penal Law § 35.15 permits the use of deadly physical force only where requirements as to triggering conditions and the necessity of a particular response are met (see, Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses § 121 [a], at 2). As to the triggering conditions, the statute requires that the actor "reasonably believes" that another person either is using or about to use deadly physical force or is committing or attempting to commit one of certain enumerated felonies, including robbery. As to the need for the use of deadly physical force as a response, the statute requires that the actor "reasonably believes" that such force is necessary to avert the perceived threat.
Again, not sure why you feel compelled to argue about this. Your points regarding “stand your ground” are totally irrelevant.
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:16 pm to Riverside
quote:
First, Chicago is probably more dangerous right now than NYC in the 1980
HOLY shite
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:17 pm to RelicBatches86
quote:
I'd like to say I'm surprised in 2025 people defending this are justifying shooting when a group of Black people walks by and looks at them
Defend? Not really. Bad situation for the guy to be in. You're in complete denial if you don't think something was about to go down. Were they going to harm him physically? Who knows? There was zero reason for them to be grouped around him in such close proximity. Blue/green shirt obviously did something to trigger him. We don't know much more than that other than his response. He might could defend himself on the first fellow, but not the second who was retreating.
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:18 pm to Riverside
quote:
"reasonably believes" that another person either is using or about to use deadly physical force or is committing or attempting to commit one of certain enumerated felonies, including robbery
quote:
Again, not sure why you feel compelled to argue about this.
Because none of the above requirements exist
No use of force, let alone deadly force
And no felonies, let alone the required enumerated ones (like Robbery)
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:19 pm to L.A.
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
ecause none of the above requirements exist
No use of force, let alone deadly force
And no felonies, let alone the required enumerated ones (like Robbery)
Do we know what green shirt was pulling out of the bag or what he dropped?
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:26 pm to L.A.
Some people say they’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. This guy is living that in real time.
This post was edited on 6/29/25 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because none of the above requirements exist
Not true. I have given you the news accounts that state there had been a prior altercation between the teens and the lifeguard before the shooting.
quote:
And no felonies, let alone the required enumerated ones (like Robbery)
The lifeguard claims he reasonably believed the teens were trying to steal his bike and attack him. The law allows you to use deadly force to protect yourself and your property if it’s reasonable under the circumstances.
There’s clearly a jury question on self-defense in this case.
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:29 pm to SmackoverHawg
quote:
Do we know what green shirt was pulling out of the bag or what he dropped?
quote:
Witnesses also said none of the three teenage boys had a weapon, prosecutors said.
quote:
Marjay walked past the Leto along the sidewalk, while Victim 3, still on the grassy area, reached toward Leto's bike
LINK
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:34 pm to Riverside
quote:
. I have given you the news accounts that state there had been a prior altercation between the teens and the lifeguard before the shooting.
That prior altercation isn't an example of a person about to use deadly force. Which enumerated felony fits?
quote:
The lifeguard claims he reasonably believed the teens were trying to steal his bike and attack him.
That isn't an example of a person about to use deadly force. Which enumerated felony fits?
quote:
There’s clearly a jury question on self-defense in this case.
Nobody is saying that isn't a possibility.
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
piece of shite defending thugs of a certain hue - of course!
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:45 pm to L.A.
Right..they just all rolled up 2’ from the dude from all directions to help him change his tire.
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:46 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:
piece of shite defending thugs of a certain hue - of course!
What the frick
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
After reading that, it sounds like they were up to no good and picked the wrong guy. Seems like they got "Falling Down" Michael Douglas. Marine to banker to lifeguard? Let's steal his bike and f#$k with him.
Judging by what he had in his bag, he was prepared. Once again, they are obviously up to something in the video and the back story explains it. He's screwed though.
Judging by what he had in his bag, he was prepared. Once again, they are obviously up to something in the video and the back story explains it. He's screwed though.
Posted on 6/29/25 at 9:49 pm to Riverside
quote:
Defendant Bernhard Goetz boarded this subway train at 14th Street in Manhattan and sat down on a bench towards the rear section of the same car occupied by the four youths. Goetz was carrying an unlicensed .38 caliber pistol
This post was edited on 6/29/25 at 9:55 pm
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News