MovieChat Forums > Death Wish (1974) Discussion > What could they charge Paul Kersey for i...

What could they charge Paul Kersey for if caught?

posted 16 years ago by digital_groove
59 replies | jump to latest

I'm not a police officer or district attorney but I'm well rounded in most topics. Watching this I began to wonder, what exactly could they charge him with?

The first murder if they found Kersey, they would find out it was self defense and he shot him. His word against a man with a rap sheet and drug user.

Second time was saving the man who was being mugged by 3 people. He shot the two again in self defense and ok he shot the guy in the back who was running away. Again if caught he could say he was there tried to help the man and shot the 3 people coming after him. It's his word against 3 dead robbers with weapons who were mugging a man who would testify for Kersey's sake. Sure he shot him in the back and that's fishy in itself but he was a mugger and again it's Kersey's word against a dead criminal.

The other time in the subway, two people with weapons trying to rob him, Kersey shoots them both.

My argument is basically all the people he shot had weapons trying to either harm him or rob him. He shoots and kills them and if caught would say it was self defense and he could stretch the truth and say he was chased by them and shot back. Granted it would be clear of his vigilante intentions but in most cases it's just plain self defense and in some dancing on a fine line (shooting man in back), which I'd imagine the police cannot charge you since it's fairly clear the man had a weapon and was committing a crime.

Thoughts all welcome. If anyone is a police officer or knows the legal system I'd love to know what the police would have charged him with during his first few vigilante murders.

[–] Iam_A_Cannibal77 16 years ago

i thought of this question too..

"What you did to him. LOOK what you DID to him!"

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[–] nvasapper 14 years ago

"Kill her, Mommy. Kill her. Don't let her get away." !!!

[–] fdecker 16 years ago

He would definitely be charged with possession of an illegal handgun.

Muggers operating out here, they just plain get their asses blown off. - Aimes Jainchill

[–] zensixties 16 years ago

Just look up the Bernard Getz case. On the other hand Kersey DID get caught. But the point you make about self defense isn't really legit, considering Kersey baited them all. But I think the point of the film was that Kersey was basically not in his right mind (remember how he believes it's a "showdown" and such). So had it gone to trial, he'd probably get off with not guilty due to temporary insanity. I'm not an attorney though.

Play the game existence 'til the end...of the beginning...

[–] saint-21 16 years ago

sadly, they'd find something to charge him with. probley make him out to be more monster than all the criminals out there...

[–] SkrillmaSter 16 years ago

First of all possession of a firearm

[–] JRBobDobbs 16 years ago

That's not a crime in the U.S. Many states even allow citizens to concealed carry with a permit.

[–] lartrak 16 years ago

New York City has some of the most stringent gun laws in the USA. You can NOT legally carry a gun there under any normal circumstances. That's what happened to Bernard Goetz. He served considerable prison time, after shooting 4 people, just for a serious gun violation.

On a side note, I don't think "baiting" people to attack you by doing things like sitting in a subway car or walking in a park is against the law.

[–] maxwellp_2000 16 years ago

Kersey would have been charged with illegal possession of an unregistered firearm to start. In New York City (unlike jurisdictions that understand the US Constitution) possession of a firearm that has not been registered with the city is illegal. Carrying that firearm on the street would be a separate charge.

Taking only the second incident, where he was being menaced by three muggers who had just attacked someone, the minimum charge would be Manslaughter; the most likely charge would be Murder in the Second Degree, and if a prosecutor wanted to be aggressive, he might have been charged with Murder in the First Degree. Self defense would not be a valid defense for the reasons set forth below.

Kersey's muggers were armed with lethal weapons (knife, tire iron) but were some distance away. He didn't order them to stop, but simply drew and fired. He might have been able to argue that he was outnumbered and feared for his life when he shot the first two. The third mugger ran, and was shot in the back. (Not even law enforcement is permitted to fire at fleeing felons.)

Even in jurisdictions with "Castle Doctrine" laws, (i.e. that specify that a citizen who is in an area where he is legally allowed to be may defend himself, and has no duty to retreat when threatened) a person who is defending himself is not permitted to shoot an attacker who flees. In many cases one could argue being afraid that the attacker was only making a tactical retreat, and might return to attack again, an especially strong argument, if the attacker was armed. Kersey not only shot the fleeing mugger in the back, but followed him, and shot him again. (In other incidents, he also shot attackers more than once, including when they were down, and apparently disabled, and he pursued attackers who fled.) Following the attacker, and shooting him, shows an intent to do harm, and not just to defend one's self.

Placing one's self in a position to attract attackers is not illegal. It is stupid, but being stupid is legal. It also does not disqualify one from voting which explains a lot of the laws restricting self-defense.

[–] marktayloruk 16 years ago

Would any jury have convicted him?I wouldn't have.Had I been a New Yorker,I'd have written in the name Bernhard Goetz for Mayor in 1985.There are some people just not fit to associate with the rest of us.

[–] MontanaJones 16 years ago

Bernard Goetz did a total of 8 months for possession of the handgun. He then lost a civil suit for 40 some million for the "emotional stress" he inflicted. Within a year one of the "victims" held a gun on a pregnant 18 year old while one of his homies sodomized her another was soon arrested for robbery.

[–] nvasapper 14 years ago

Try getting a concealed carry permit here in New York City. Just try.

[–] tawdry_hepburn 15 years ago

Yeah...he's a serial killer with 10-15 victims. If you follow the whole series by the end of part 5 he is likely the most prolific serial killer in American history. He's a fascist. His ideology of brute force without a mediator is Nazi-esque.

Every scene you saw him "defending himself" during was a clear cut case of First Degree Murder. Often, he was even laying in wait. If he were caught, he would be looking down death or LWP.

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors

[–] frankzappayay 9 years ago

[–] tawdry_hepburn 9 years ago

Paul Kersey has a lot in common with George Zimmerman. Just sayin'

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

[–] wmlopez 9 years ago

Bernard Getz is the best example. If a white,wussy looking geek can be made out to be a killer. Can you imagine what a guy looking like Bronson would be made out to be by the media?

[–] bateau82725 16 years ago

I think he said the "show me your hand" statement,was that he lost a lot of blood and became light-headed (remember,he past out)I don't think he was crazy,he became morbidly obessed.

[–] Tosh_Togo 15 years ago

No- I think his line was "Fill your hand". (Also uttered by Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne) in True Grit by the way) In other words he was inviting the other guy to draw his weapon- a challenge for a duel. This was in reference to the underlying Wild West theme running through the movie.

[–] geoh777 16 years ago

The police hate competition (someone going around cleaning up the streets when they should be doing that) and will pull out all stops in their effort to quash that competition while ignoring the thugs that the competition was going against. Everyone knows that this is what would happen: if you want trouble with the police, just go around cleaning up the streets with a weapon.

So, they would charge him with anything they could, if they didn't take him out directly (with the support of the media, etc.), and let the thing cycle through the courts. Woe unto him if he didn't get a really good and sympathetic lawyer. (Good luck, these lawyers work with and for the system.)

In the meantime, the thugs are left mostly unharrassed while the police use excuses like adverse court decisions, low resources, and a general doughnut shortage.

I've never seen any of these movies, a deficiency I will try to repair.

[–] bmovies 16 years ago

"The police hate competition (someone going around cleaning up the streets when they should be doing that) and will pull out all stops in their effort to quash that competition while ignoring the thugs that the competition was going against"

This is true. I recall in New York city when Ed Koch was still Mayor. One particular neighborhood that was filled with so much crime, and the cops werent doing anything, much less the courts. In frustration, the local residents and business owners got the Guardian Angels to patrol their neighborhood (Ed Koch once opposed the guardian Angels)

About the Guardian Angels:

"The Guardian Angels is a non-profit, international, volunteer organization of unarmed citizen crime patrollers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels

The Guardian Angels patrolled the neighborhood and almost overnight, it went from one of the worst crime ridden neighborhoods to one of the safest in the city. The local priest said that this was the first time in years he didnt have to sweep crack vials off the front steps of the church.

Of course, this brought alot of positive publicity to the Guardian Angels, so it wasnt long before the cops showed up to harass and arrest various members of the Guardian Angels.

Here's an article:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE2D6113BF930A25754C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[–] FPoP 16 years ago

first degree murder, lots of them.

not saying whether good or bad, it's the Law, somewhere on this planet you'd receive a death penalty for denouncing the omnipotent's existence and by the Law too, not saying it's right but it's the Law for the time being.

[–] Tanuccoon 16 years ago

Since I doubt he had a permit for carrying a concealed fire-arm, I'd start there and work my way to aggravated manslaughter... I assume almost every count would be manslaughter over homocide, since it's easier to prove.

[–] jbmarcy 16 years ago

Well, when you say something like "it's his word against" some criminal, and "he could stretch the truth," that's basically saying, What would they charge him with if he successfully lied his way off the stand in a trial? Him being able to manipulate the court's inherent trust in him, an upstanding citizen, has nothing to do with the crimes he is or isn't guilty of, and if anything it adds Perjury to the list if he did stretch the truth on the stand.

The fact that he does go "over the line," as law dictates it, by shooting people in the back (a couple of whom never actually attacked him, i.e. the end of the film) seals it. He breaks the law in the film. What could they charge him with? Possession of an illegal firearm, carrying without permit, assault and battery, manslaughter, murder?

Whether the charges would lead to a conviction is another matter entirely.

[–] RSTowers 16 years ago

You can tell if a man is shot in the back as opposed to the front. You can also tell the distance of the shot if you have the right information. With that you could tell that he murdered some of the criminals (shooting them in the back, while they were trapped, running away, shooting them a second time after they were down). It wouldn't be hard tbh if they could prove it was him doing the shooting.

[–] reverendhawkfunk 16 years ago

you have to keep in mind this was a time when times square was basically the welcome mat to the front door of hell. i'd say it really depends on what the public's general feelings were towards a vigilante shooting the bejeezus out of a bunch of scumbags. public outcry can sway a court decision easily. there isnt a government agency in the country that would lock up someone the general public was canonizing. its called PR, and depends on how his lawyer would spin it, how the ordinary citizens feel about it, etc...

actually, i guess it depends on what white people think, cuz the court system doesnt care about anybody else. ;)

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nvasapper 14 years ago

INSPECTOR OCHOA: Muggings have gone down by how much, sir?

DISTRICT ATTORNEY: From 950 a week to 470 as reported last week.

INSPECTOR OCHOA: And you want to keep it that way.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Oh, no- we have to keep it that way. This whole city would explode. You'd have vigilantes on the street shooting anybody who even looked greasy.