Talk:People v. Goetz

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Introduction

Followed the link from Wikipedia law project. It occurs to me that the introduction to this article should explain why this case is significant. Ordinarily, case articles are introduced like this: Smith v. Jones a circuit opinion from this country discussing the significance of this legal principle. You don't even get to know why this case is important before you are given the facts. Just a thought. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case is significant not so much due to the legal holding (which is still an important holding), but due to the fact that it permitted the case against Goetz to continue. The significance of the Goetz case is referred to and linked from the first paragraph of the article which discusses the "media frenzy", etc. Tufflaw 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the New York political establishment - teaching law students?

Its amazing the Goetz case is inflicted on law students with so much misinformation. Bad cases = bad law. If law is written on a case, then the legal profession has an obligation to engage in a good faith pursuit of truth, instead of politics. Get the facts straight and then decide what the law is. Relying on Troy Canty and James Ramseur (obvious liars at the time) and using biased fact finding in a precident setting case is BS.

Reading Fletcher's "A Crime of Self-Defense" is a waste of time - the book is short on facts and is an empty shell. This decision is more about politics in the NY courts than it is about laws for robbery or self defense. The law hardly changed. While on an adrenaline rush a victim can use deadly force.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.201.186.186 (talk • contribs) .

It should be noted that prior to this decision Governor Cuomo stated words to the effect "Goetz may have been legally right but he was morally wrong, and everybody knows it." I don't have the exact quote, if someone finds it please put it here. Would this statement have influenced the court? I agree that the main significance of this decision is that it permitted the case against Goetz to continue.

This article could be misleading

It is misleading that the NY State Seal is used, and this article does not even show an actual transcript of the judge’s decision. A transcript of the judge’s decision should be added. If there are inaccuracies, let them at least be the court's.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.147.215.29 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I added a link to the transcript of the court's actual decision, and think links to other NY court proceedings on this case could be added (hearing authorizing 2nd grand jury, and dismissal of 2nd indictment?) to provide background information. I'm not sure I got the "Standard for justification" completely right - Judge Crane's jury instruction at the criminal trial probably defines it, so others should feel free to correct or elaborate on it.

"No basis for the lower court to suspect perjury" ?

"With respect to the lower court's alternate theory for dismissal, the perjury issue, the Court held that there was no basis for the lower court to suspect perjury, and that there was no basis in statute or case law permitting a dismissal merely because new information comes to light which may lead a defendant's acquittal."

What nonsense! "No basis for the lower court to suspect perjury" ??? So "new information (perjury)" can indict someone a 2nd time, but "new information" that is not suspect as perjury has no standing? How far was the court willing to debase itself to indict this guy?

Legal significance of a pause between any of the shots

If the shooter is experiencing visual distortion and audio exclusion, and there is a pause between any of the shots, what amount of reflection does or should the law expect of the shooter between the shots? It doesn’t look like its addressed in this decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.255.56 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of nine witnesses at the court trial, one testified there was a pause; eight testified there was no pause. Contrary to the media and prosecution pollution of the jury pool before the trial, Cabey was shot once not twice. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]