Talk:People v. Goetz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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. mmmbeerT / C / ? 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] 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 the truth, instead of politics. Get the facts straight and then decide what the law is.
Judge Wachtler, a rising New York political star, complained that as many as 80 agents from the FBI's Newark and New York offices took part in investigating him, and that they could have been investigating Islamic extremists instead. 1100 New York cops were originally assigned to investigating the “subway vigilante.” Should they have been investigating street crime instead?
Wachtler was intellectually corrupt long before he was arrested. Relying on "champaign witnesses" such as 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) .
[edit] Bogus 2nd grand jury
Law students should see the following page for the transcript of the hearing authorizing the 2nd grand jury based on "newly discovered evidence":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_v._Goetz&diff=116306422&oldid=75945485 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.8.98 (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] This article is 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).
I just added a link to the transcript of the court's actual decision, but I think links to other NY court decisions and proceedings on this case should be added (hearing authorizing 2nd grand jury & dismissal of 2nd indictment) to provide background information.
