When neither elected to do so, however, there was a violation of the New York Penal Code, leading to the consideration of their guilt or innocence. Implications Under Article 20 of New York Penal Law

While the condemnation of a victim is not a viable defense, the implications for Bluto and his obligations under Article 20 deserves exploration. Just as Duty of Retreat applied to Popeye and Olive, it likewise applied to Bluto, as he had the opportunity, and indeed a legal obligation, to walk away from the dispute, and if he did so, the outcome would have been quite arguably different.

For everyone involved, the obligations of conduct under Article 20 are clear; simply put, the incident should never have been inflated to the point that it ultimately was.

Legal Precedence

Perhaps the most famous real life legal case in New York history was that of People v. Goetz, which involved the shooting of four New York teens on a subway train by Bernard Goetz, a seemingly innocuous man who happened to be carrying a loaded firearm, which he used in order to shoot his would-be muggers (Fletcher, 1998). This case parallels the "Popeye Case" in several key areas; first, Duty of Retreat was at least theoretically an obligation of Goetz. When he was confronted by the teens on the subway, he had an obligation under the law to try to flee from the aggressors; instead, he made a conscious choice to use deadly force against them. On the other hand, however, Defense of Justification also could have value in the consideration of the Goetz case in that if he did in fact have no other choice but using force as a means of protecting himself and ultimately saving his own life, then he truly had no choice but to defend himself in a violent manner. In regard to the real life case of Bernard Goetz, he was eventually convicted of wrongdoing in the actions that he took on that New York subway, and whether he was right...

Oyl and the real-life case of People v. Goetz, for all of their similarities and differences, bring about some other quite interesting points to consider. First, while difficult to determine in many cases, when does reasonable force become unreasonable, and criminal action. Admittedly, the right to protect one's self and others should in fact be preserved, but again, boundaries must exist to ensure that this right is not abused in the pursuit of violence or just harming others. Additionally, when someone intends to prey on someone else, they should have some inkling that their intended victim may very well take some sort of action in response.
For jurors, the challenge lies in whether or not actions are justified or criminal when judging a defendant, and there appears to be no clear answers in these matters. Indeed, each case must be independently evaluated by juries, adding value to the American judicial system, and maybe, that is the point of this evaluation of these portions of the New York Penal Code. Any law must be properly interpreted and judiciously applied by law enforcement as well as the court systems so that law and order can be maintained while still ensuring that victims and defendants alike are afforded every possible consideration for the fulfillment of the burden of due process under law, for any laws are useless if they either compromise the rights of everyone involved or allow everyone to slip by via loopholes that render the laws all but useless. In closing, let it be understood that laws must not only protect, but also promote the best interests of everyone.