Page 2/The Battalion/Thursday, June 18, 1987
Opinion
What happens when everybody shoots bad
Bernhard
Goetz: subway
saint or sadistic
shootist?
Although a jury
acquitted Goetz on
charges of
attempted murder
Tuesday, the
question has not
been answered.
Was Goetz
protecting himself
Karl
Pallmeyer
or did he gun down four innocent
victims on that subway on Dec. 22,
1984?
Goetz claims that four black youths,
Barry Allen, Darrell Cabey, Troy Canty
and James Ramseur, surrounded him
and were about to beat him up and rob
him. The four men said they werejust
panhandling when Goetz drew his
unlicensed .38 revolver and shot them.
Either way, one of the men, Cabey, now
suffers from paralysis and brain
damage.
New York is a dangerous city. In the
words of a bag lady who asked me for
money one morning in New York: “The
idea behind New York is that you can
kill somebody and then collect their
insurance money.” I was there for just a
few days when I saw what looked like a
pick-pocket at work. Crime and violence
is high in New York just as it is in any
other large city. The police can’t be
everywhere at once, so some people
decide to take the law into their own
hands.
One night, while riding the subway to
Brooklyn, I saw two Guardian Angels,
self-appointed protectors of the people,
burst through one subway car on their
way to another. A few minutes later they
were walking back congratulating each
other and giving each other the high
five. I didn’t even want to know what
happened. Like most people in New
York, I didn’t want to get involved. It’s
not that the people don’t care and don’t
want to help their fellow man, it’s just
that they are afraid that their own lives
will be in danger if they get involved.
It’s nice that there are some people
who want to protect others but
sometimes you have to wonder. Are the
people who beat up people in the name
of the law committing violence in order
to uphold the law or just because they
like to beat up people? Do the Guardian
Angels and vigilantes like Goetz use
violence to maintain peace or to receive
pleasure for themselves?Goetz himself
admitted that while he was shooting, his
intention was “to murder them, to hurt
them, to make them suffer as much as
possible.”
A New York subway is a depressing
place. The weight of the city’s seven
million people can be felt pressing down
on everyone. After a hard day of work
and trying to deal with the city, tempers
are on the edge. The threat of robbery
and/or physical harm doesn’t set
people’s minds at ease. It’s easy for
someone to lose his cool under the
intense tension and fear on the subways.
When that person is carrying a weapon,
especially a gun, someone is bound to
get hurt.
Goetz may have had the right to
protect himself, but did he have the
right to hurt others? Did he have to
carry a gun? Did he have to shoot all
four men? Wouldn’t a shot in the air
have been enough to scare off his
alleged attackers?
They jury has made its decision and
Goetz is acquitted of 12 charges,
including second-degree attempted
murder, first-degree assault and
reckless endangerment. The jury did
convict Goetz on one charge, a third-
degree weapons possession charge for
owning the gun he used on the four
men. On Sept. 4, Goetz will be
sentanced for the weapons charge. He
could serve 2 and one-third to 7 years in
prison. Or he could get off without
serving any time in prison.
If justice is to be upheld in this case,
Goetz must serve for his crime. Maybe
he was protecting himself and he
shouldn’t, like the jury said, be
punished. But he was carrying an illegal
gun and harmed others with that gun.
lei
ByJ'
If Cioetz is allowed to get off scoti:
for the case, more and more scared
people will start carrying guns.Thei
will think that they need loproteci
themselves and, if they have to used
gun, they will be acquitted. If more;
more scared people start carrying^
there are going to be more and moi
shootings. Many of those shootings
won’t be in self defense. Manyoftf
shootings will be the result of someoBcurricu
getting mad and dec i(ling to iTaib'tt)' dieir <
gun instead of common sense.
Increasing
A person should have the rightJondary sc
protect hmiM-li and oiliers. Butil>!^ 1k ‘ i < ’ <l '
. , . , . j .■Donna
when that right is abused to the porL), U1 C( |
that the r< si <>l the peopleimistprilthstnuiini
themselves from those whoclaimt
are protecting themselves andotlii
Karl Pallmeyer is a journalism
graduate and a columnist forTk
Battalion.
students ii
now mine
tain profe
economy i
■The Me
by Larke
area mine
A&M stuc
Who needs college
to moke mega bucks?
ivailable t<
JThe pr
both the r
As I turn the
corner at 40 mph
— a speed I’ve
worked up to in
just two days —the
lights from my
truck shine on the
home of my first
customer.
Mike
Sullivan
Guest Columnist
It’s 3 a.m. as I cruise past his
driveway. Slap. First newspaper
delivered, 349 to go.
“What the hell am 1 doing here,” I
asked myself the first night on the job.
May 9th, I became a college-educated
man. My grade point is respectable and
I was involved in extracurricular
activities while in school. I majored in
journalism, but 1 never expected to be
delivering newspapers — a job that
reejuires none of the above qualifications
and much less. So why am I doing it?
Because I’ll clear $450 this week. And
that ain’t bad for roughly 20 hours of
work.
I’m filling in for a carrier who’s on
vacation, but the man in charge wants
me to come to work for him full time.
He’s guaranteed me $30,000 my first
year with a promise to promote me
within two years to a joo paying
$50,000. He’s not just blowing smoke,
either. This guy is making about
$ 11,000 a month as a distributor.
What would you do?
I have other plans, but I must admit
the offer is tempting. Here’s a job
requiring almost nothing of the
employee other than common sense,
responsibility and a reliable vehicle.
And it pays better than 95 percent of
the jobs any of us members of the
college-educated elite will have on
graduation day.
If throwing newspapers doesn’t do
much for you — even at that price —
maybe you’d be interested in something
a little closer to home. How about a
maintenence job at Texas A&M.
I have it from a reliable source that
those people who walk around picking
up trash and painting campus parking
lots start out at as much as $ 11.00 an
hour, or roughly $22,000 a year. Don’t
forget about benefits. You might even
be able to sneak into football games
wearing that uniform.
How much pride — false pride at any
rate — do you have? If you have a
college degree and you’re interested in
making blue-collar money, I guess that’s
what it boils down to.
While delivering papers in an
apartment complex the other morning
around 6 a.m., some of the people were
beginning to leave for work. I even
hand-delivered a few papers to nicely
dressed young people. Most weren’t too
friendly and some were even rude.
To them, I was just a newspaper
delivery man, ranking right above
garbage men on the social scale. They
probably thought me a real scum
sucker.
But they didn’t know me. They didn’t
know I was probably making more
i them. Ai
wouldn’t have dreamed that I have a
degree from the best University in
Texas. I almost felt like telling them.
There’s that false pride coming
through.
So why don’t I accept the generous
offer and go to work full time for the
newspaper? It’s not that I’m looking
forward to office politics, incompetent
superiors and fellow employees who like
coffee better than work.
No, I need a challenge, as, I hope, all
college-educated people do.After a few
nights throwing papers, the job isn’t
much of a challenge. So, I’ve decided to
continue to pursue a more mentally
demanding line of work, a career in
which all of my qualifications,
experience and talent will be constantly
called upon and tested.
And if my chosen profession doesn’t
provide any of that, I’m sure I’ll find it
challenging to live on the salary.
Mike Sullivan is a journalism graduate,
guest columnist for The Battalion and
one great guy.
Public should be exempt from AIDS testirv
Howard
Phillips, chairman
of the
Conservative
Caucus, is an
important figure
on the political
right. He recently
appeared on
television to
express a
conservative
position on AIDS
Richard
Cohen
Next to Jim Bakker, Falwell loves
homosexuals the most.In contrast, we
have the language of President Reagan.
In his recent speech calling for limited
AIDS testing (of immigrants, federal
prisoners, patients in VA hospitals,
persons applying for marriage licenses
and those attending sexual-disease
clinics), the president sounded a
cautionary note: “This is a battle against
disease, not against our fellow
Americans.”
and, in passing, his views on
homosexuality. He favors the widest-
possible testing of almost everyone
under any circumstances, including
“prospective apartment renters.”
Phillips apparently thinks you can get
AIDS from a lease. As a minor (one
apartment) landlord myself, I am
appalled. I don’t know how to repair a
toilet, much less administer an AIDS
test. In my experience, just checking
bank references is chore enough.
Asking every prospective tenant to
submit to an AIDS test (monthly?
annually?) is enough to dampen my
entrepreneurial spirit. I will not even
mention the ever-increasing cost of fuel.
Reagan is no bigot when it comes to
homosexuals. As California governor,
when some homosexuals were
discovered on his staff, Reagan handled
what could have been a nasty scandal
with sensitivity. But he has failed to deal
with the ugly homophobia infecting
much of the American conservative
movement. Along with Vice President
Bush, he has kissed the ring of
mudslingers such as Falwell and refused
to slap down the likes of Phillips.
Now the nation is paying a price.
AIDS, which is a disease after all, has
become a political issue. Where the
nation should be united, it is divided.
The administration has little credibility
with homosexuals. For good reasons (its
rhetoric, its associations and some
appalling administrative decisions), it is
not trusted by the gay community. Even
some scientists suspect the White House
is more interested in battling
homosexuals than the disease that’s
killing them.Maybe limited mandatory
testing is the way to go. Coming from
another administration, such a proposal
—hardly Draconian, after all — might
be met with some minor protest,
discussion and, ultimately, compromise.
But in the gay community, the Reagan
administration is known by the
company it keeps and the decisions it
has made. Until the Supreme Court
ruled otherwise, the Reagan Justice
Department said AIDS victims could be
legally fired whether the fear of
contagion was “reasonable or not.” And,
just recently, the White House refused
to reserve a seat for a homosexual on
the president’s AIDS commission
move akin to denying Jews a place«|
the Holocaust commission. (Aboul
percent of all AIDS victims are
In the Eisenhower era, thephrast
“moral suasion” had a certaincurrti
It referred to the president’spown
set a certain moral tone, toleadW
of character. Dwight D. Eisenhouerj
faulted for failing to do precisely^
when it came to school desegregate
and history has assigned him some j
demerits as a result.
The judgement of history isnot'1
on President Reagan. But surely it‘j
have to take into account a preside! 1 !
AUST
lupreme
for the fi
Ory of in
:es such
The
tmptor”
ijule “as
as repair;
ntly out
rn servu
“It doe
the ordir
but to th
Couragir
’ shoddy v
C opi
"s sai
I' The St
■arrant i
Lonnie
glgaiiist V
turing Co
The B
modular
they pure
veloped ]
Over the y
ter movii
a sin
the drain
alls.
Ajury:
ages, and
eals at F
ial cour
ipheld th
Cle
AUST II
eight bills
good new;
breakers.
The leg
whose own words, when it comes to sum thate
AIDS and homosexuals, wereabo'* the hills wi
reproach, but who was silentabotitl 1 waI1,1
reprehensible language °1 his ag/tha’/ha
supporters. When it comes to Am- ‘-jj lcse |
ultimate test may well he for moral l an( j sate
principles. It should be administer! li es a nd p
politicians, not apartment renters 1] bills are b;
were, the Reagan administration^ form to tin
flunk. ■ “The ef
on our soci
Copyright 1987, Washington Post WritW 1
His
money than
ind certainly they
I start with Phillips for a reason,
suggestion is typical of the
demagoguery coming from some
segments of the American conservative
movement on the issue of AIDS and
homosexuality. Others have made
similar suggestions and, of course, Jerry
Falwell, who precedes his attempts at
character assassination with a “Sonnet
From The Portuguese” (“How do I love
thee? Let me count the ways?”),
continues to employ ugly anti-gay
language in his fund-raising appeals.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwestjournalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Sondra Pickard, Editor
Jerry Oslin, Opinion Page Editor
Rodney Rather, City Editor
John Jarvis, Robbyn L. Lister, News Editors
Homer Jacobs, Sports Editor
Robert W. Rizzo, Photo Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper oper-
~ :M and Br
Iryan-College Sta-
ated as a community service to Texas A&M ;
tion.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial
board or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions
of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students
in,reporting, editing and photography classes within the Depart
ment of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during
Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examination
periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62 per school
year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on re
quest.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX 77843-4111.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216
Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station TX
77843^111.