If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Judge rules that police in New York are under no duty to stop a madman from slicing you into fillets   (opposingviews.com) divider line 167
    More: Asinine, Judges' Rules, New York, Margaret Chan, dereliction of duty, supreme court justices, Gothamist  
•       •       •

7996 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2013 at 10:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-31 04:59:49 PM
The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.
 
2013-07-31 05:09:49 PM
Police representatives argued that they had no "special duty" to intervene

So therefore citizens have no obligation to assist an officer in distress then?
 
2013-07-31 06:26:01 PM
And they are following precedent in doing so.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. DC
 
2013-07-31 08:30:55 PM

Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.


No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us
 
2013-07-31 08:42:54 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us


Gun ban advocates rarely possess firearms.
 
2013-07-31 08:46:49 PM

Dimensio: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

Gun ban advocates rarely possess firearms.


Yes, it's the people that don't own guns and/or want some restrictions on them that are paranoid
 
2013-07-31 08:49:26 PM
What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?
 
2013-07-31 08:54:44 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us


No, but it can shoot the motherfarker that is stabbing you when the cops won't respond.
 
2013-07-31 08:59:38 PM
Give them some lip and see how fast they intervene to Taser your ass.
 
2013-07-31 09:17:46 PM
A crime was being committed, surely that falls under their job description.  I wonder what a non-biased article would have looked like.
 
2013-07-31 09:43:06 PM

I_Am_Weasel: A crime was being committed, surely that falls under their job description.  I wonder what a non-biased article would have looked like.


A non-biased article would merely have reported upon the outcome of the trial, and the basis for the ruling that police are under no duty to protect individual citizens and thus their failure to provide any protection to anyone not in their custody is not legally actionable.

Police may, if they wish, watch a violent crime occur without intervening.
 
2013-07-31 09:44:27 PM

basemetal: What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?


To protect and serve the society at large. Maybe they should write that last part a little bigger on the fenders.

You are but a single blade of grass on the lawn of society. You don't matter as an individual. Sure, the cops will pursue and arrest your murderer but only at a pace of their own convenience.


Look at what happened when they were chasing that Dorner guy around a few months ago. They shot the shiat out anything that almost looked like Dorner's vehicle because they were scared andif they had to blast a few innocent grandmothers delivering newspapers to protect themselves that was just the kind of sacrifice they were prepared to make in the line of duty. The police have militarized to the point of expected collateral damage as part of every day business. Do think for an instant that it was an LAPD thing.


Also when your house catches fire the fire dept only shows up to put it out so as to save the houses NEXT TO IT. Chances are that the bucket boys will wreck your house worse than the fire while putting it out.


/Sleep tight citizen
 
2013-07-31 09:53:17 PM

Lsherm: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

No, but it can shoot the motherfarker that is stabbing you when the cops won't respond.


So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry
 
2013-07-31 10:13:16 PM
You know, I have yet to see one person in Okla carry openly.

/and I live in a prime area for people to do it.
 
2013-07-31 10:19:44 PM
Peter von Nostrand:

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry

At the very least, there should be a whole bunch of dead criminals lying around, no longer able to prey on the weak and hapless!
 
2013-07-31 10:26:30 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

No, but it can shoot the motherfarker that is stabbing you when the cops won't respond.

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry


Son, there's an art to trolling.  Doubling down on a logical fallacy isn't it.
 
2013-07-31 10:28:41 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Peter von Nostrand:

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry

At the very least, there should be a whole bunch of dead criminals lying around, no longer able to prey on the weak and hapless!


Running out of hap is the worst.
 
2013-07-31 10:34:04 PM
The Supremes decided this years ago: the police are under no obligation whatsoever to EVAR come to your aid.

IOW they are there to provide security theater, generate revenue for local/State government and keep the darkies on their side of the tracks.

Prove me wrong.
 
2013-07-31 10:36:45 PM
Kitty Genovese is a prime reason for carrying.
Old school crime victim.
 
2013-07-31 10:37:16 PM
To Protect and Serve

That's one down. They've been kind of iffy on that last one for a long time too.
 
2013-07-31 10:37:58 PM

Dimensio: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

Gun ban advocates rarely possess firearms.


Dianne Feinstien has had a concealed weapon permit since the late 70's for her own protection, funnily enough when she orchestrated the Californian gun bans she exempted herself and other politicians. In New York politicians and ex-police officers are still allowed access to the dreaded "assault weapons" unlike us untermensch.
 
2013-07-31 10:38:21 PM
Gelman stabbed Joseph Lozito in the face, neck, hands and head on an uptown 3 train in February 2011, after fatally stabbing four people and injuring three others in a 28-hour period. Lozito, a father of two and an avid martial arts fan, was able to tackle Gelman and hold him down, and Gelman was eventually arrested by the transit officers. Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had locked themselves in the conductor's car and failed to come to his aid in time.

I wasn't there but that report does not look good.

Here we are the police are bullies, and have no responsibility to put themselves in harms way if there is a citizen at risk of crazed attacker.

But they do have there mission to make a non-quota of arrests every night (1) per Schoolcraft in the 81'st, and pat down people of color in order to find marjuana, and conduct surveillance (2) outside of state lines. This is specifically the NYPD we are talking about here.

The NYPD has completely lost it's sense of mission. Fire the lot and start the fark over.

1Link
2Link
 
2013-07-31 10:38:21 PM

Lsherm:


Son, there's an a art to trolling. .


Fixed
 
2013-07-31 10:38:47 PM
In some states, it is illegal for doctors and other other off-duty medical personnel that happen to pass by people in need of assistance and not render whatever aid they can.
 
2013-07-31 10:38:53 PM
This is in fact an old legal doctrine - you generally cannot sue the police, or the city, because you argue that they "didn't do their jobs."  Same applies to the fire department.  The original purpose behind the law is that many times municipal resources will be spread thin and/or civil servants will have to make judgement calls that end up either going south.  The classic hypo is when 1 cop has to respond to two calls.  If he responds to Alice, and Bob gets robbed Bob  will sue, and if he response to Bob and Alice gets robbed, Alice will sue.

As first responders often face kobayashi maru type scenarios,  to be able to sue the city for what they don't do, a plaintiff must show that they acted willfully.  Thus if a firefighter doesn't put out your fire because he doesn't think it is safe, or is trying to put out another fire, no suit.  But if your ex-bf the firefighter laughs while your house goes up and says revenge is sweet, sue away.

Here the article says the man in question took out a knife-nut while the police were hiding in the conductor's area.  My gut says it was more the Police were trying a strategy, dumb tho it may have been , and captain martial arts decided to take out the bad guy himself.  And got hurt.  and then sued.
 
2013-07-31 10:39:14 PM
Dimensio:Police may, if they wish, watch a violent crime occur without intervening.

On the other hand, it is a crime for a civilian to refuse to protect an Officer from a violent crime if ordered.

Even though we don't get the body armor, weapons, training, and pay that Officers get.
 
2013-07-31 10:39:14 PM
came here expecting a "fail to show up case "

found a case of "no balls"

Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had
locked themselves in the conductor's car and http://gothamist.com/2011/03/23/man_stabbed_during_madmans_rampage.ph p">failed to come to his aid in time.
 
2013-07-31 10:39:46 PM
Stone Meadow:  keep the darkies on their side of the tracks.

What if they want a bag of skittles and a beverage of choice from this side of the tracks?
 
2013-07-31 10:40:27 PM
So, has New York passed a "you have to roll up into a ball and take it" law yet?
 
2013-07-31 10:40:29 PM
What do you expect? NY politicians don't want police officers to do police work.
 
2013-07-31 10:41:28 PM

Dimensio: I_Am_Weasel: A crime was being committed, surely that falls under their job description.  I wonder what a non-biased article would have looked like.

A non-biased article would merely have reported upon the outcome of the trial, and the basis for the ruling that police are under no duty to protect individual citizens and thus their failure to provide any protection to anyone not in their custody is not legally actionable.

Police may, if they wish, watch a violent crime occur without intervening.


And for any that do so and allow innocent civilians to come to harm, I hope they choke on a bag of rusty razor blades.
 
2013-07-31 10:41:41 PM
Under legal obligation or not, locking themselves in the conductor's cabin is rather unbecoming. Medal of bravery not yours.
 
2013-07-31 10:42:11 PM

GUTSU: Dianne Feinstien has had a concealed weapon permit since the late 70's for her own protection, funnily enough when she orchestrated the Californian gun bans she exempted herself and other politicians. In New York politicians and ex-police officers are still allowed access to the dreaded "assault weapons" unlike us untermensch.


I hate to bust your "liberal hypocrite" rant but legislatures at every level exempt themselves from many of the laws they pass.
 
2013-07-31 10:42:33 PM

But you do have a duty to keep seven or fewer rounds in your magazine.


/assuming you can get a permit.

/All those gang members are packing, so it can't be too hard.

 
2013-07-31 10:42:47 PM
The duties of a police officer are to protect and serve - unless they don't feel like it, apparently. A Manhattan Supreme Court Justice has ruled that the City of New York has no legal obligation to protect its citizens, even if armed police are present at the scene of a dangerous incident.

So if i read TFA right, the policemen locked themselves in another car when they saw the crazed knife wielding psycho and have no duty to protect citizens? Hmmmm..something is fishy here. We aren't getting the whole story, or the reporter is a liberal.
 
2013-07-31 10:42:56 PM

SN1987a goes boom: In some states, it is illegal for doctors and other other off-duty medical personnel that happen to pass by people in need of assistance and not render whatever aid they can.


Which states?
 
2013-07-31 10:43:59 PM
Well, they were transit cops. These are the guys who graduate at the bottom of their academy class, so i never expect much from them.
 
2013-07-31 10:44:16 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: So if i read TFA right, the policemen locked themselves in another car when they saw the crazed knife wielding psycho and have no duty to protect citizens? Hmmmm..something is fishy here. We aren't getting the whole story, or the reporter is a liberal.


I thought your first and only duty as an Officer was to come home alive?
 
2013-07-31 10:44:18 PM
This article, from right after the attack and featuring statements from the Plaintiff in TFA, indicates the police boarded the train behind the assailant and were closing in on him while he was pounding on the conductor's car.  The Crazy guy started shouting that tghe police had to let him in, then when he saw the two cops he started to attack the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff took him out before the police could get there.

Thus, sounds much more like:
(1) the police were closing in on a nutjob who had already killed a bunch of people that day, probably hoping not to spook him into killing again,
(2) he spooked anyway,
(3) "hero citizen" takes out killer.
(4) "hero citizen" then sues cops for not being fast enough.  .
 
2013-07-31 10:44:56 PM
 
2013-07-31 10:45:37 PM
If the police are not present and are not aware that someone is being attacked then how can they be expected to protect you?  That is what this case is about.  The judge did NOT rule that if the police witness a crime in progress that they can just stand there whistling Dixie.
 
2013-07-31 10:45:55 PM

Teiritzamna: This article, from right after the attack and featuring statements from the Plaintiff in TFA, indicates the police boarded the train behind the assailant and were closing in on him while he was pounding on the conductor's car.  The Crazy guy started shouting that tghe police had to let him in, then when he saw the two cops he started to attack the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff took him out before the police could get there.

Thus, sounds much more like:
(1) the police were closing in on a nutjob who had already killed a bunch of people that day, probably hoping not to spook him into killing again,
(2) he spooked anyway,
(3) "hero citizen" takes out killer.
(4) "hero citizen" then sues cops for not being fast enough.  .


You have a poor grasp of law. Please stop.
 
2013-07-31 10:46:46 PM
LemSkroob
Well, they were transit cops. These are the guys who graduate at the bottom of their academy class, so i never expect much from them.


So these are the bottom feeding scum that wait for people to pick up a wallet and arrest them for not immediately handing it the next cop that walks by, or like to give $50 ticket for people that put their feet up on empty chairs.

Go figure.
 
2013-07-31 10:48:12 PM
WTF so much for PROTECT and serve eh?
 
2013-07-31 10:48:52 PM
Judge rules that police in New York are under no duty to stop a madman from slicing you into fillets

On the other hand, if they shoot you full of bullets because they got the address wrong for the drug raid...they were on duty, so it's cool.
 
2013-07-31 10:49:31 PM
Duty is in the eye of the beholder.
 
2013-07-31 10:50:07 PM

Mock26: If the police are not present and are not aware that someone is being attacked then how can they be expected to protect you?  That is what this case is about.  The judge did NOT rule that if the police witness a crime in progress that they can just stand there whistling Dixie.


The Officers were sufficiently aware of the attack to lock themselves in the conductor's cabin.
 
2013-07-31 10:50:35 PM
Entirely consistent with past rulings.

Government's police are not there to protect you. They have no duty to protect you. They serve the institution of government.

Teiritzamna: Here the article says the man in question took out a knife-nut while the police were hiding in the conductor's area. My gut says it was more the Police were trying a strategy, dumb tho it may have been , and captain martial arts decided to take out the bad guy himself. And got hurt. and then sued.


You're quite unfamiliar with the story. The attacker had already murdered others and simply attacked this guy on the train after an attempt to impersonate a cop and gain access to the conductor failed. Once the victim successfully defended himself, the cop came out of the locked conductor's area and made the arrest. The cops then took full credit for the capture. The only thing the victim did to prompt being attacked was to be sitting by conductor's door which made him the first thing this psycho saw when his attempt to gain access failed. Also as the victim sat there bleeding profusely the cops dragged everything out preventing him from getting prompt medical attention.

I'll leave it your search engine skills to dig up the interviews and stories on it.
 
2013-07-31 10:51:00 PM

catpuncher: You have a poor grasp of law


asplain
 
2013-07-31 10:51:28 PM
Marcus Aurelius

Police representatives argued that they had no "special duty" to intervene

So therefore citizens have no obligation to assist an officer in distress then?

I sure as hell wouldn't. I don't care what anyone does to a cop.

ImpendingCynic

I hate to bust your "liberal hypocrite" rant but legislatures at every level exempt themselves from many of the laws they pass.
ROTFL... is there anything you won't excuse when it's a liberal doing it?
 
2013-07-31 10:51:58 PM

fnordfocus: Dimensio:Police may, if they wish, watch a violent crime occur without intervening.

On the other hand, it is a crime for a civilian to refuse to protect an Officer from a violent crime if ordered.


Got a link for that?
 
2013-07-31 10:52:03 PM

ImpendingCynic: GUTSU: Dianne Feinstien has had a concealed weapon permit since the late 70's for her own protection, funnily enough when she orchestrated the Californian gun bans she exempted herself and other politicians. In New York politicians and ex-police officers are still allowed access to the dreaded "assault weapons" unlike us untermensch.

I hate to bust your "liberal hypocrite" rant but legislatures at every level exempt themselves from many of the laws they pass.


It doesn't change the fact that Diane Feinstein who has repeatedly advocated stripping everyone of their second amendment rights, made getting a handgun in california an almost impossibility, has the farking balls to reserve the right to be surrounded by security guards with "assault weapons" while carrying a concealed weapon herself. It would be like Pat Robinson snorting coke off of an 18 year old twinks ass while openly denouncing drugs and homosexuals.
She is a literal example of "Do as I say, not as I do" I can't even think of a better example.
 
2013-07-31 10:52:27 PM
Obviously variables at play unreported in the article.

Police engage suspects in a tactical manner in the same way fire fighters approach a scene in a tactical manner. Safety is a priority. The other night when the propane facility had tanks blowing up every four seconds, the fire department wouldn't go in, even though civilian lives were clearly at risk. It just didn't make sense to. In an unlikely attempt to save lives, they'd almost definitely lose theirs.

Police in this situation, I assume, had a plan of attack in mind that was disrupted by the good samaritan. Or, they had called for backup and didn't want to intervene until they could absolutely ensure the guy's capture without further harm to him or themselves.

It's funny because had two cops approached a crazy, knife wielding murderer and it resulted in the murderer getting shot in a struggle, we'd be posting in outrage over how the situation was handled. But two cops follow a protocol and wait for strength in numbers before engaging someone and they're cowards.
 
2013-07-31 10:53:32 PM

basemetal: What exactly is their duty then?


Right now my job's eatin' these donuts!
 
2013-07-31 10:54:13 PM

Teiritzamna: catpuncher: You have a poor grasp of law

asplain


http://mdean.tripod.com/immunity.html

Maryland case law.  I'd bother finding similar NY case law, but then I'd just be referencing the decision in this case.  Maybe you should read it before posting completely incorrect gems like "As first responders often face kobayashi maru type scenarios,  to be able to sue the city for what they don't do, a plaintiff must show that they acted willfully."
 
2013-07-31 10:56:42 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

No, but it can shoot the motherfarker that is stabbing you when the cops won't respond.

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry


Switzerland arms and trains all of it's citizen because of the whole militia bit. Their gun violence rates aren't near as bad as ours. There is a better way to do things.

I am a gun owner and I wouldn't mind more regulation and training all around.
 
2013-07-31 10:56:53 PM
The number one goal of any cop is to get home without AIDS at the end of the day.  They are not heroes.  They are just enforcers doing a job.
 
2013-07-31 10:57:45 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So therefore citizens have no obligation to assist an officer in distress then?


Hah.

PEN 195.10  Refusing to aid a peace or a police officer.

A person is guilty of refusing to aid a peace or a police officer when, upon command by a peace or a police officer identifiable or identified to him as such, he unreasonably fails or refuses to aid such peace or a police officer in effecting an arrest, or in preventing the commission by another person of any offense. Refusing to aid a peace or a police officer is a class B misdemeanor.

That's good for three months in jail, along with the various non-judicial punishments handed out for contempt of cop.  Also, with a record, you'll be unemployable, ineligible for public benefits, lose your gun rights, etc.
 
2013-07-31 10:57:48 PM

charmbomb: Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

No, but it can shoot the motherfarker that is stabbing you when the cops won't respond.

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry

Switzerland arms and trains all of it's citizen because of the whole militia bit. Their gun violence rates aren't near as bad as ours. There is a better way to do things.

I am a gun owner and I wouldn't mind more regulation and training all around.


Please excuse my syntax and typos, I'm pregnant and it's been a long day.
 
2013-07-31 10:58:57 PM
arcas: New York Penal Law § 195.10.  Just quoted in another post.
 
2013-07-31 11:00:08 PM
No Soap Radio:
It's funny because had two cops approached a crazy, knife wielding murderer and it resulted in the murderer getting shot in a struggle, we'd be posting in outrage over how the situation was handled. But two cops follow a protocol and wait for strength in numbers before engaging someone and they're cowards.

Other than the fact that they twiddled their thumbs up their asses while someone was getting shanked a few feet away. Look you don't have to defend the NYPD, they are completely incompetent, corrupt, and utterly abysmal at their jobs. fark last year 2 cops managed to injure 14 people while firing on a guy almost point blank. A few years before that they spent $80,000 on typewriters.
What happened is that the cops were farking pussies and waiting until they could easily win in the situation, because of their cowardice some guy got stabbed.
 
2013-07-31 11:00:50 PM
This isn't really shocking. The police are under no legal obligation to even help you if you're being raped and murdered in front of the station. Welcome to America, land of the free and home of police departments who can't be bothered to be brave.
 
2013-07-31 11:02:14 PM

GUTSU: ImpendingCynic: GUTSU: Dianne Feinstien has had a concealed weapon permit since the late 70's for her own protection, funnily enough when she orchestrated the Californian gun bans she exempted herself and other politicians. In New York politicians and ex-police officers are still allowed access to the dreaded "assault weapons" unlike us untermensch.

I hate to bust your "liberal hypocrite" rant but legislatures at every level exempt themselves from many of the laws they pass.

It doesn't change the fact that Diane Feinstein who has repeatedly advocated stripping everyone of their second amendment rights, made getting a handgun in california an almost impossibility, has the farking balls to reserve the right to be surrounded by security guards with "assault weapons" while carrying a concealed weapon herself. It would be like Pat Robinson snorting coke off of an 18 year old twinks ass while openly denouncing drugs and homosexuals.
She is a literal example of "Do as I say, not as I do" I can't even think of a better example.


People akin to Pat Robertson have done exactly what you just said - Ted Haggard, for one. Sorry, I don't have the list handy of conservatives who have railed against gays and drugs, only to be found snorting both at once, but it's fairly lengthy.
 
2013-07-31 11:02:27 PM

GUTSU: No Soap Radio:
It's funny because had two cops approached a crazy, knife wielding murderer and it resulted in the murderer getting shot in a struggle, we'd be posting in outrage over how the situation was handled. But two cops follow a protocol and wait for strength in numbers before engaging someone and they're cowards.

Other than the fact that they twiddled their thumbs up their asses while someone was getting shanked a few feet away. Look you don't have to defend the NYPD, they are completely incompetent, corrupt, and utterly abysmal at their jobs. fark last year 2 cops managed to injure 14 people while firing on a guy almost point blank. A few years before that they spent $80,000 on typewriters.
What happened is that the cops were farking pussies and waiting until they could easily win in the situation, because of their cowardice some guy got stabbed.


That's not how they tell the story at the bar though, and that's what counts.
 
2013-07-31 11:02:38 PM

GUTSU: No Soap Radio:
It's funny because had two cops approached a crazy, knife wielding murderer and it resulted in the murderer getting shot in a struggle, we'd be posting in outrage over how the situation was handled. But two cops follow a protocol and wait for strength in numbers before engaging someone and they're cowards.

Other than the fact that they twiddled their thumbs up their asses while someone was getting shanked a few feet away. Look you don't have to defend the NYPD, they are completely incompetent, corrupt, and utterly abysmal at their jobs. fark last year 2 cops managed to injure 14 people while firing on a guy almost point blank. A few years before that they spent $80,000 on typewriters.
What happened is that the cops were farking pussies and waiting until they could easily win in the situation, because of their cowardice some guy got stabbed.


Looks like you two are in agreement on that point at least.
 
2013-07-31 11:03:01 PM

Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.


They SHOULD be relying on police for protection.  That doesn't mean police are required to actually protect them.
 
2013-07-31 11:03:24 PM

From the source:

...they were in the motorman's car because they believed Gelman had a gun. And Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan has sided with the city, noting that there was no evidence the cops were aware Lozito was in danger at the time.

Lozito sued for negligence, but city lawyers say his demand for unspecified money damages should be tossed because the police had no "special duty" to protect him or any individual on the train that day-there's a long-standing legal precedent requiring cops to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual's rights. According to the official NYPD account and Howell's affidavit, Howell was the one who tackled and subdued Gelman.


*fart noises*
 
2013-07-31 11:04:24 PM

Lsherm: Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

No, but it can shoot the motherfarker that is stabbing you when the cops won't respond.

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry

Son, there's an art to trolling.  Doubling down on a logical fallacy isn't it.


I'm glad we both agree the post I was initially responding to is stupid and made up
 
2013-07-31 11:04:53 PM

basemetal: What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?


Hippie punching and infiltrating protest groups.
 
2013-07-31 11:04:55 PM

BafflerMeal: SN1987a goes boom: In some states, it is illegal for doctors and other other off-duty medical personnel that happen to pass by people in need of assistance and not render whatever aid they can.

Which states?


In Alabama a Fireman/EMT while off duty must stop and render aide if they see someone hurt or an accident etc.

// Knows a couple of firement
 
2013-07-31 11:05:09 PM

Teiritzamna: D'oh

this article


That makes more sense and actually has statements from the man who was attacked.

Sounds like the police got on to talk to the conductor. The assailant started banging on the door wanting the police to let him in, but the moment they started walking toward him he attacked the other guy.

Whoever wrote the original submitted article definitely had a lot of bias. It doesn't sound like the police were "hiding" at all, just trying to get more information from the conductor, probably regarding whether he had heard or saw anything.

I guess it would have been better if they had rushed in, guns drawn and yelling. That probably would have made the guy react, too. Darned if they do and darned if they don't in this case.
 
2013-07-31 11:05:58 PM
If it is the NY cops the would probably end up shooting you instead of the attacker by mistake anyway and put a gun in your hand.
 
2013-07-31 11:06:33 PM

Teiritzamna: D'oh

this article



Thanks for the real article.  I may not click on OV links any longer.
 
2013-07-31 11:06:38 PM

ImpendingCynic: GUTSU: ImpendingCynic: GUTSU: Dianne Feinstien has had a concealed weapon permit since the late 70's for her own protection, funnily enough when she orchestrated the Californian gun bans she exempted herself and other politicians. In New York politicians and ex-police officers are still allowed access to the dreaded "assault weapons" unlike us untermensch.

I hate to bust your "liberal hypocrite" rant but legislatures at every level exempt themselves from many of the laws they pass.

It doesn't change the fact that Diane Feinstein who has repeatedly advocated stripping everyone of their second amendment rights, made getting a handgun in california an almost impossibility, has the farking balls to reserve the right to be surrounded by security guards with "assault weapons" while carrying a concealed weapon herself. It would be like Pat Robinson snorting coke off of an 18 year old twinks ass while openly denouncing drugs and homosexuals.
She is a literal example of "Do as I say, not as I do" I can't even think of a better example.

People akin to Pat Robertson have done exactly what you just said - Ted Haggard, for one. Sorry, I don't have the list handy of conservatives who have railed against gays and drugs, only to be found snorting both at once, but it's fairly lengthy.


Doesn't change the facts, I'm not a conservative by the way at least not a social one. I just find it funny that these people proclaiming all the ills that gun ownership causes some how think that they are more important than any other citizen. I'd honestly have more respect for antigun politicians if they followed what they preach.
 
2013-07-31 11:07:07 PM

basemetal: What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?


Radar traps and busting kids for pot possession, of course. To your average cop, that's all that matters in this world.
 
2013-07-31 11:07:46 PM

One Bad Apple: Lsherm:


Son, there's an a art to trolling. .

Fixed


Care to try that one again?

The English language is lost on you...
 
2013-07-31 11:08:10 PM

lewismarktwo: The number one goal of any cop is to get home without AIDS at the end of the day.  They are not heroes.  They are just enforcers doing a job.



Tell me about it.  I can't even do some decent solo ramraiding in the middle of the night without some idiot Witnessing me.
 
2013-07-31 11:09:14 PM
GanjSmokr:
Looks like you two are in agreement on that point at least.

Call me old fashioned but I believe the police should put the public, especially when they've been disarmed before themselves. You know the whole "Protect and Serve" bit.
 
2013-07-31 11:10:12 PM

fnordfocus: Mock26: If the police are not present and are not aware that someone is being attacked then how can they be expected to protect you?  That is what this case is about.  The judge did NOT rule that if the police witness a crime in progress that they can just stand there whistling Dixie.

The Officers were sufficiently aware of the attack to lock themselves in the conductor's cabin.


Oh really?  You have proof of this?  Because the farking article says that they were in the conductor's car.  Not sure if you have ever been on a subway train before, but they are made up of multiple cars, with the conductor being in the front one.  Based on what was actually written in the article it sounds like the police were in the front car and the attack occurred in another car.  Absolutely nothing in the article says that the cops witnessed the attack and then turned their backs on the scene and locked themselves in the conductor's cabin.
 
2013-07-31 11:10:42 PM
GUTSU: blahblahblahWhat happened is that the cops were farking pussies and waiting until they could easily win in the situation, blahblahblah

I know it's different that direct police work, but in EMS, responders are trained that scene safety is the most important thing. You don't enter a situation unless you're safe. In the police world, you don't enter unless you have at least an understanding of the situation, a lot of help, or human lives are at stake.

The man that was stabbed in this case had his life at stake, but it was at stake regardless of whether or not police intervened. It would be best to prevent addition loss of life by waiting for the cavalry and apprehending a clearly dangerous person without a struggle. Call them pussies if you'd like but I have a hard time faulting them for doing what they had to do to ensure they would go home to their families that night. They don't get any medals of bravery but hard to judge them. Perhaps civilians shouldn't try to apprehend crazy people, by the way, and when they do, they shouldn't complain about injury.

Feeling a little dirty defending NYPD because I too feel they are genuinely awful. But in this case? Muddy details & crazy wildcard murderous variable lead me to give those cops some benefit of the doubt.
 
2013-07-31 11:11:46 PM

CujoQuarrel: In Alabama a Fireman/EMT while off duty must stop and render aide if they see someone hurt or an accident etc.


A few years back, an NYC EMT faced criminal charges for refusing to help a pregnant woman suffering an asthma attack because she was on a coffee break.

Charges disappeared eventually, of course.
 
2013-07-31 11:12:01 PM

GUTSU: Doesn't change the facts, I'm not a conservative by the way at least not a social one. I just find it funny that these people proclaiming all the ills that gun ownership causes some how think that they are more important than any other citizen. I'd honestly have more respect for antigun politicians if they followed what they preach.


And what I'm saying is, don't be so focused on the gun part. Congress has, in hundreds of ways, made it clear they're better than everyone else. For instance, until just recently, insider trading was quite illegal, unless you were one of those lucky 535.
 
2013-07-31 11:12:40 PM

Mock26: fnordfocus: Mock26: If the police are not present and are not aware that someone is being attacked then how can they be expected to protect you?  That is what this case is about.  The judge did NOT rule that if the police witness a crime in progress that they can just stand there whistling Dixie.

The Officers were sufficiently aware of the attack to lock themselves in the conductor's cabin.

Oh really?  You have proof of this?  Because the farking article says that they were in the conductor's car.  Not sure if you have ever been on a subway train before, but they are made up of multiple cars, with the conductor being in the front one.  Based on what was actually written in the article it sounds like the police were in the front car and the attack occurred in another car.  Absolutely nothing in the article says that the cops witnessed the attack and then turned their backs on the scene and locked themselves in the conductor's cabin.


Never mind.  Missed the link to the other article.
 
2013-07-31 11:13:50 PM

youknowme: One Bad Apple: Lsherm:


Son, there's an a art to trolling. .

Fixed

Care to try that one again?

The English language is lost on you...


Oh, and he got one...

Frankly, I thought he was too obvious.
 
2013-07-31 11:13:52 PM

CujoQuarrel: BafflerMeal: SN1987a goes boom: In some states, it is illegal for doctors and other other off-duty medical personnel that happen to pass by people in need of assistance and not render whatever aid they can.

Which states?

In Alabama a Fireman/EMT while off duty must stop and render aide if they see someone hurt or an accident etc.

// Knows a couple of firement



hrm.  can't find anything about that.  in all of states I have practiced in though it seems to be more oral tradition than an actual law.
 
2013-07-31 11:15:40 PM

No Soap Radio: GUTSU: blahblahblahWhat happened is that the cops were farking pussies and waiting until they could easily win in the situation, blahblahblah

I know it's different that direct police work, but in EMS, responders are trained that scene safety is the most important thing. You don't enter a situation unless you're safe. In the police world, you don't enter unless you have at least an understanding of the situation, a lot of help, or human lives are at stake.

The man that was stabbed in this case had his life at stake, but it was at stake regardless of whether or not police intervened. It would be best to prevent addition loss of life by waiting for the cavalry and apprehending a clearly dangerous person without a struggle. Call them pussies if you'd like but I have a hard time faulting them for doing what they had to do to ensure they would go home to their families that night. They don't get any medals of bravery but hard to judge them. Perhaps civilians shouldn't try to apprehend crazy people, by the way, and when they do, they shouldn't complain about injury.

Feeling a little dirty defending NYPD because I too feel they are genuinely awful. But in this case? Muddy details & crazy wildcard murderous variable lead me to give those cops some benefit of the doubt.


It's nice that you believe that 2 armed police officers need a detailed attack plan listing every single outcome to stop a single guy with a knife. That guy being stabbed to death mere feet away? Completely expendable, wouldn't want to have a police officer be put into a dangerous situation to defend the public now would we?
 
2013-07-31 11:17:04 PM

Mock26: fnordfocus: Mock26: If the police are not present and are not aware that someone is being attacked then how can they be expected to protect you?  That is what this case is about.  The judge did NOT rule that if the police witness a crime in progress that they can just stand there whistling Dixie.

The Officers were sufficiently aware of the attack to lock themselves in the conductor's cabin.

Oh really?  You have proof of this?  Because the farking article says that they were in the conductor's car.  Not sure if you have ever been on a subway train before, but they are made up of multiple cars, with the conductor being in the front one.  Based on what was actually written in the article it sounds like the police were in the front car and the attack occurred in another car.  Absolutely nothing in the article says that the cops witnessed the attack and then turned their backs on the scene and locked themselves in the conductor's cabin.


I don't have a forensically-secured videotape if that's what you mean by proof.  I do, however, read the paper and such.  From  http://gothamist.com/2011/03/23/man_stabbed_during_madmans_rampage.ph p:

...even though subway passengers were yelling for help, the police officers decided to lock themselves in the front room with the conductor because they thought Gelman had a gun...
 
2013-07-31 11:18:05 PM

No Soap Radio: But two cops follow a protocol and wait for strength in numbers before engaging someone and they're cowards.


two cops, transit or otherwise, should be sufficient for one guy with a knife. unless they are cowardly and more involved in protecting themselves rather than the paying public.
 
2013-07-31 11:20:35 PM

GUTSU: GanjSmokr:
Looks like you two are in agreement on that point at least.

Call me old fashioned but I believe the police should put the public, especially when they've been disarmed before themselves. You know the whole "Protect and Serve" bit.


You're old fashioned.

We've gone from this

www.lincoln.ne.gov

to this

www.arminblog.com
 
2013-07-31 11:22:09 PM
Just one more occasion to highlight the necessity of the 2nd amendment
 
2013-07-31 11:25:26 PM
 If citizens cannot defend themselves and officers will not defend citizens either, what other options are available?

"I expect you to die, Mr. Bond."
 
2013-07-31 11:26:18 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Yes, it's the people that don't own guns and/or want some restrictions on them that are paranoid


Right. Because believing that everyone but you is a homicidal maniac who will commit murder at the drop of a hat and thus should be barred (by men with guns) from owning guns....that's not paranoid AT ALL. Nope, not at all. Wanting to disarm someone in another state whom you will never interact with because you believe they're going to kill you....not paranoid at all, nope. Perfectly sane.
 
2013-07-31 11:27:09 PM

ArkAngel: And they are following precedent in doing so.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. DC


came for Warren vs the District of Columbia, leaving satisfied.
 
2013-07-31 11:27:40 PM

Lsherm:


Oh, and he got one...

Frankly, I thought he was too obvious.


Out here in 'literland they practically jump in the boat.
 
2013-07-31 11:28:43 PM

No Soap Radio: Obviously variables at play unreported in the article.

Police engage suspects in a tactical manner in the same way fire fighters approach a scene in a tactical manner. Safety is a priority. The other night when the propane facility had tanks blowing up every four seconds, the fire department wouldn't go in, even though civilian lives were clearly at risk. It just didn't make sense to. In an unlikely attempt to save lives, they'd almost definitely lose theirs.

Police in this situation, I assume, had a plan of attack in mind that was disrupted by the good samaritan. Or, they had called for backup and didn't want to intervene until they could absolutely ensure the guy's capture without further harm to him or themselves.

It's funny because had two cops approached a crazy, knife wielding murderer and it resulted in the murderer getting shot in a struggle, we'd be posting in outrage over how the situation was handled. But two cops follow a protocol and wait for strength in numbers before engaging someone and they're cowards.


For what reason would any rational individual be "outraged" at an aggressive, knife-wielding murderer being shot during an altercation with police?
 
2013-07-31 11:29:09 PM
No Soap Radio:
It's funny because had two cops approached a crazy, knife wielding murderer and it resulted in the murderer getting shot in a struggle, we'd be posting in outrage over how the situation was handled.

Whose "we" chief? Shooting some nut on a killing spree before he can attack someone else seems like an entirely acceptable result.
 
2013-07-31 11:29:58 PM

I_Am_Weasel: A crime was being committed, surely that falls under their job description.  I wonder what a non-biased article would have looked like.


Reality is confusing when it go's against everything you've been indoctrinated to believe in, isn't it?
 
2013-07-31 11:30:10 PM

dervish16108: basemetal: What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?

Hippie punching and infiltrating protest groups.


Yup. Gotta make sure the money keeps flowing in the right direction. If they dissolved the NYPD Goldman Sachs, BofA, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan, etc. would be smoking piles of rubble by the end of the week.
 
2013-07-31 11:30:47 PM

Saturn5: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

They SHOULD be relying on police for protection.  That doesn't mean police are required to actually protect them.


You are saying, then, that citizens should rely solely upon an entirely unreliable agency with no actual duty to protect for their protection?
 
2013-07-31 11:32:10 PM

GUTSU: She is a literal example of "Do as I say, not as I do" I can't even think of a better example.


Well, how about Sarah Brady, of the Brady Bill, who purchased an unregistered firearm illegally and then shot an intruder with it?
 
2013-07-31 11:32:33 PM

ArkAngel: And they are following precedent in doing so.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. DC


Except neither of those two cases are on point. In both those cases the cops were not a witness to any violent activity first hand whereas in this case, if the article is to be believed, they were. I actually agree that the police have no special duty to an individual citizen absent any clear evidence that a crime is being committed. But in this case such clear evidence existed. That's why it's nuts.
 
2013-07-31 11:34:55 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Peter von Nostrand:

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry

At the very least, there should be a whole bunch of dead criminals lying around, no longer able to prey on the weak and hapless!


Wait, I thought  everyone would be dead. That's what gun ownership leads to right?
 
2013-07-31 11:35:03 PM

untaken_name: Peter von Nostrand: Yes, it's the people that don't own guns and/or want some restrictions on them that are paranoid

Right. Because believing that everyone but you is a homicidal maniac who will commit murder at the drop of a hat and thus should be barred (by men with guns) from owning guns....that's not paranoid AT ALL. Nope, not at all. Wanting to disarm someone in another state whom you will never interact with because you believe they're going to kill you....not paranoid at all, nope. Perfectly sane.


I'm not really sure what your point here is. I don't have a problem with gun ownership
 
2013-07-31 11:35:07 PM
 
2013-07-31 11:38:34 PM
i1211.photobucket.com

/I can't wait to get out of this state
 
2013-07-31 11:51:30 PM
This has been the case in case (har) after case, going back decades.

The police are under no obligation whatsoever to protect you. Only insofar as it starts to hurt their funding through bad publicity.
 
2013-08-01 12:04:32 AM
The worst example of following bad precedent since Dred Scott. Appeal it all the way to the supreme court until somebody decides dereliction of duty is just as wrong for a cop as it is for a soldier. Then fire the asswipes and jerk their pensions. Although a "court martial" and execution would be more just.
 
2013-08-01 12:06:26 AM

ImpendingCynic: GUTSU: ImpendingCynic: GUTSU: Dianne Feinstien has had a concealed weapon permit since the late 70's for her own protection, funnily enough when she orchestrated the Californian gun bans she exempted herself and other politicians. In New York politicians and ex-police officers are still allowed access to the dreaded "assault weapons" unlike us untermensch.

I hate to bust your "liberal hypocrite" rant but legislatures at every level exempt themselves from many of the laws they pass.

It doesn't change the fact that Diane Feinstein who has repeatedly advocated stripping everyone of their second amendment rights, made getting a handgun in california an almost impossibility, has the farking balls to reserve the right to be surrounded by security guards with "assault weapons" while carrying a concealed weapon herself. It would be like Pat Robinson snorting coke off of an 18 year old twinks ass while openly denouncing drugs and homosexuals.
She is a literal example of "Do as I say, not as I do" I can't even think of a better example.

People akin to Pat Robertson have done exactly what you just said - Ted Haggard, for one. Sorry, I don't have the list handy of conservatives who have railed against gays and drugs, only to be found snorting both at once, but it's fairly lengthy.


You're missing the point.
 
2013-08-01 12:10:53 AM

Peter von Nostrand: untaken_name: Peter von Nostrand: Yes, it's the people that don't own guns and/or want some restrictions on them that are paranoid

Right. Because believing that everyone but you is a homicidal maniac who will commit murder at the drop of a hat and thus should be barred (by men with guns) from owning guns....that's not paranoid AT ALL. Nope, not at all. Wanting to disarm someone in another state whom you will never interact with because you believe they're going to kill you....not paranoid at all, nope. Perfectly sane.

I'm not really sure what your point here is. I don't have a problem with gun ownership


Your pants are on fire.
 
2013-08-01 12:15:05 AM

basemetal: What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?

-=-
Sounds about right. And we pay them for that. Kind of like a Mafia.
 
2013-08-01 12:15:55 AM
Don't click Opposing Views links.

They pay for the greenlights and their articles are trolltastic inflammatory tripe.
 
2013-08-01 12:20:26 AM
Policemen are more for solving crimes than directly intervening in them. I think you're thinking of super heroes subby.
 
2013-08-01 12:21:00 AM

Disgruntled Goat: Don't click Opposing Views links.

They pay for the greenlights and their articles are trolltastic inflammatory tripe.


That makes them ideally suited for Fark.
 
2013-08-01 12:22:26 AM
www.pbase.com

- Australia 2010. June 2nd.  In Melbourne City.
- man at gas station attacks woman
- man stabs woman repeatedly in neck with knife
- Policeman arriving to fuel up his car stands back and watches.
- Policeman ignores screaming woman and incredulously begins to film the incident with his cell phone.
- man with knife continues to stab woman in hands, face, neck, back, chest. stomach.
- man with knife threatens to kill anyone who intervenes when other drivers try to stop him.
- man with knife continues to stab woman in hands, face, neck, back, chest. stomach.
- Policeman said to be frightened and moves a safe distance away. Continues filming.
- man with knife continues to stab woman in hands, face, neck, back, chest. stomach.
- man with knife begins to pour gasoline over dying woman who is screaming for help.
- man with knife attempts to light the woman on fire.  People try to stop him but are forced back by the knife.
- Policeman ignores pleas to intervene.  Continues filming from cellphone.
- woman (victim) is set alight.  Sustains burns to 100% of her body (see article).
- Woman dies.
- Policeman later investigated to failing to act (see article).
 
2013-08-01 12:27:37 AM

Peter von Nostrand: I'm not really sure what your point here is. I don't have a problem with gun ownership


You were framing the debate in such a way as to cast aspersions on gun owners while completely exonerating non-gun-owners. I was simply re-framing it in an opposite manner to show that your characterization could be easily countered.
 
2013-08-01 12:28:12 AM
*Unless those fillets are larger than 16 ounces, because obesity.
 
2013-08-01 12:30:48 AM
Someone please point me to some analysis of this ruling that doesn't come from a site which pops up an ad for a "40 Hottest Women In Sports" photogallery?

I know that the precedent is well established that police have extremely limited liability for failure to prevent harm to you, under the general reasoning that it's literally impossible for police to be everywhere at once and act in a manner 100% free of human error.

I do wish the question had been answered as to how the transit police could have been aware that they were in danger, but not that every other person on the train was also in danger.
 
2013-08-01 12:32:01 AM
And people call north korea weird.
 
2013-08-01 12:49:08 AM
I love the cop derp brigade around here.

Cops move with caution: how dare they, they should have blindly chased just in case the bad guy took action before they were in a good position.

Cops charge after armed man with hostage into an apt and hostage dies: how dare they! They should have let the hostage get dragged out the rear of the apt where the criminal could kill her and possibly more later.

There are a lot of situations I criticize law enforcement, but watching the farkers apply their imaginary video game tactics with hindsight to every siituation gone awry is hillarious.
 
2013-08-01 01:04:41 AM
FTFA:
If citizens cannot defend themselves and officers will not defend citizens either, what other options are available?

Allow yourself to be murdered, clearly. Seems pretty obvious to me.

My question is, what is with all the struggling? Why can't these people just take their murdering quietly, and without the muss and bother? Don't they have any consideration for my convenience?
 
2013-08-01 01:10:32 AM

Smackledorfer: There are a lot of situations I criticize law enforcement, but watching the farkers apply their imaginary video game tactics with hindsight to every siituation gone awry is hillarious.


Well, ok. Granted, it's pretty good tactics to lock yourself away from a knife-wielding madman to let him stab other people, but is it good law enforcement?
 
2013-08-01 01:19:54 AM

Smackledorfer: There are a lot of situations I criticize law enforcement, but watching the farkers apply their imaginary video game tactics with hindsight to every siituation gone awry is hillarious.


What I really don't understand is why the cops didn't use right-click to bring up ironsights and just blow the bastard away. I mean, you can't miss at that range with ironsights up.
 
2013-08-01 01:28:31 AM
jpfo.org

Documented, Footnoted and Stunning
 
2013-08-01 01:31:54 AM

starsrift: Smackledorfer: There are a lot of situations I criticize law enforcement, but watching the farkers apply their imaginary video game tactics with hindsight to every siituation gone awry is hillarious.

What I really don't understand is why the cops didn't use right-click to bring up ironsights and just blow the bastard away. I mean, you can't miss at that range with ironsights up.


Good call.

Also cops need to use more of the martial arts skills the ones on tv have. You don't see tv cops need a pistol against anyone with less than a longarm most of the time. Takedowns are perfect, single punches knock the perps out without causing physical harm (except when the audience knows how guilty the guy is and we cheer, of course).
 
2013-08-01 01:37:38 AM
Wow, tracking down the actual facts in this story is a nightmare. Here's the judge's ACTUAL ruling:

Chan said that to sue the city, Lozito needed to have had direct contact with the cops in the motorman's booth and they had to have known he was in danger and ignored that, but there was no evidence of that.

So in other words, the cops (who were f*cking cowards, imo) did not know Lozito was having a fight with the suspect, and did not realize he needed help. Therefore, Lozito lacked the elements he needed to prove negligence on the part of the CITY. In addition, the "special duty" actually reads as follows:

city lawyers say his demand for unspecified money damages should be tossed because the police had no "special duty" to protect him or any individual on the train that day-there's a long-standing legal precedent requiring cops to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual's rights.

In other words, the cops felt they should cowardly be able to hide in the conductor's booth away from a madman with a gun because their need to stay alive to protect everyone else trumped Lozito's individual right to be saved from the madman with a deboning knife. Which is technically true.

In a civil suit, the burden is on the plaintiff (in this case, Lozito) to prove his case. He could not prove to the judge's satisfaction that the cops knew he was in danger, or that they had a special duty to him personally (i.e., knowing that he was actually in danger) which would have required them to act. His assertion that they "knew" the knife-wielding madman was outside is not sufficient to create a personal duty: So far as the cops knew (or that Lozito can prove) they knew that the madman was outside BUT was not harming anyone, and wasn't going anywhere till the train pulled into the next station. And for a civil case, that's all that counts.

Life sure sucks, doesn't it?
 
2013-08-01 01:44:37 AM

Clemkadidlefark: [jpfo.org image 200x329]

Documented, Footnoted and Stunning


"The entire book is an appeal to emotion, a one-sided bowl of cherry picked facts and citations all designed to support the conclusion favourable to the author's political agenda. Nothing more than a poor attempt at using fear and anxiety to promote gun-rights as a means of propaganda, the author seems to either be intellectually dishonest, lacks critical thinking skills, or alternately is disrespectful of the readership in that he thinks that the average person cannot see past the most primitive and self-evident logical flaws.

This book isn't even good propaganda.

If you're an American and enjoy the titillation of ghost stories and self-righteous agenda beating, you'll find this an easy bathroom reader with a dual purpose."


About par for the course given your inane posts.
 
2013-08-01 01:52:19 AM
This is why they're called "Police". They aren't there to protect anyone. They exist to use whatever force is necessary to clean up the mess afterward. Even the ones they themselves cause. They have little to do with actual "Law" and "Order".
 
2013-08-01 01:53:56 AM

Gyrfalcon: In other words, the cops felt they should cowardly be able to hide in the conductor's booth away from a madman with a gun because their need to stay alive to protect everyone else trumped Lozito's individual right to be saved from the madman with a deboning knife. Which is technically true.


Um... so they hid (and didn't help people) so they could stay alive (nevermind they have guns, etc), in order to... help people?

Does this make any sense whatsoever?
 
2013-08-01 02:11:41 AM
America had been colonized for 300 years before we even had police.  People protected themselves.  Or they didn't and they were in deep trouble.

If police really were willing and expected to take on any situation to protect civilians, they would deserve a tremendous amount of latitude in how they did their job, which isn't really compatible with administration of justice.  Thus I think it's best to just rely on police to handle the aftermath of crimes and tragedies, and rely on yourself for protection.

Submitting to the jurisdiction of NYC is a personal failure of responsibility.  Do not go there and expect to be safe.
 
2013-08-01 02:26:17 AM

I_Am_Weasel: A crime was being committed, surely that falls under their job description.  I wonder what a non-biased article would have looked like.


What was the bias, exactly? They ignored a crime and a judge let them off. Seriously, how do you 'add' bias when the facts are that clear?

1. Knife wielding freak attacks civilian.
2. Police do nothing.
3. Victim is able to overcome attacker after getting stabbed in the face, neck and hand.
4. Attacker turns out to have been on a spree of attacks.
5. Victim sues cops.
6. Nothing is found to be false in victim's claim, judge does not dismiss the lawsuit based on that, but on the claim that they had no "duty" that bound them to stop the attack.

Once again, those are the facts of the case, where is the bias, and how would the story be ANY different?
 
2013-08-01 02:29:33 AM

basemetal: You know, I have yet to see one person in Okla carry openly.

/and I live in a prime area for people to do it.


I live in Utah, and moved here from AZ, both states are nothing but areas where people might carry openly, and you see it very seldom, once every year or so you see someone.

It's not the epidemic people keep trying to sell you on.
 
2013-08-01 02:35:22 AM

Teiritzamna: This is in fact an old legal doctrine - you generally cannot sue the police, or the city, because you argue that they "didn't do their jobs."  Same applies to the fire department.  The original purpose behind the law is that many times municipal resources will be spread thin and/or civil servants will have to make judgement calls that end up either going south.  The classic hypo is when 1 cop has to respond to two calls.  If he responds to Alice, and Bob gets robbed Bob  will sue, and if he response to Bob and Alice gets robbed, Alice will sue.

As first responders often face kobayashi maru type scenarios,  to be able to sue the city for what they don't do, a plaintiff must show that they acted willfully.  Thus if a firefighter doesn't put out your fire because he doesn't think it is safe, or is trying to put out another fire, no suit.  But if your ex-bf the firefighter laughs while your house goes up and says revenge is sweet, sue away.

Here the article says the man in question took out a knife-nut while the police were hiding in the conductor's area.  My gut says it was more the Police were trying a strategy, dumb tho it may have been , and captain martial arts decided to take out the bad guy himself.  And got hurt.  and then sued.


Did your gut read the previous article linked in TFA? The one that says:

"And after failing to enter the motorman's car, Gelman allegedly turned his knife on Lozito, said, "You're going to die," and stabbed him in the head."

I'm guessing "no"...
 
2013-08-01 02:40:09 AM

ImpendingCynic: GUTSU: Dianne Feinstien has had a concealed weapon permit since the late 70's for her own protection, funnily enough when she orchestrated the Californian gun bans she exempted herself and other politicians. In New York politicians and ex-police officers are still allowed access to the dreaded "assault weapons" unlike us untermensch.

I hate to bust your "liberal hypocrite" rant but legislatures at every level exempt themselves from many of the laws they pass.


Yeah, but Dianne herself has told us that guns shouldn't be owned by ANYbody, it's not just exempting herself, it's like putting a scoop of exemption ice cream on top of a giant slice of hypocrisy pie, especially if the part about the assault weapons is true, if she says those are absolute evil incarnate, there's no reason that politicians or ex police should have them. This isn't getting to park in front of meters for free here...
 
2013-08-01 02:44:16 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: The duties of a police officer are to protect and serve - unless they don't feel like it, apparently. A Manhattan Supreme Court Justice has ruled that the City of New York has no legal obligation to protect its citizens, even if armed police are present at the scene of a dangerous incident.

So if i read TFA right, the policemen locked themselves in another car when they saw the crazed knife wielding psycho and have no duty to protect citizens? Hmmmm..something is fishy here. We aren't getting the whole story, or the reporter is a liberal.


If we "weren't getting the whole story", then the judge would have dismissed the case for lack of merit or for insufficient evidence. Instead, he makes an excuse for the cops and tells the court that he is literally letting them off the hook for kit doing their jobs.

Seriously, you've got to learn to read between the lines. The very things the judge DIDN'T do give you all the data a smart person would need.

Hell, it's all a garden slug would need.

/Or an NYPD cop
 
2013-08-01 02:47:21 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Clemkadidlefark: [jpfo.org image 200x329]

Documented, Footnoted and Stunning

"The entire book is an appeal to emotion, a one-sided bowl of cherry picked facts and citations all designed to support the conclusion favourable to the author's political agenda. Nothing more than a poor attempt at using fear and anxiety to promote gun-rights as a means of propaganda, the author seems to either be intellectually dishonest, lacks critical thinking skills, or alternately is disrespectful of the readership in that he thinks that the average person cannot see past the most primitive and self-evident logical flaws.

This book isn't even good propaganda.

If you're an American and enjoy the titillation of ghost stories and self-righteous agenda beating, you'll find this an easy bathroom reader with a dual purpose."

About par for the course given your inane posts.


I think the title alone should tell you it's not going to be an unbiased, scholarly, peer-reviewed study.
 
2013-08-01 02:51:34 AM

Teiritzamna: This article, from right after the attack and featuring statements from the Plaintiff in TFA, indicates the police boarded the train behind the assailant and were closing in on him while he was pounding on the conductor's car.  The Crazy guy started shouting that tghe police had to let him in, then when he saw the two cops he started to attack the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff took him out before the police could get there.

Thus, sounds much more like:
(1) the police were closing in on a nutjob who had already killed a bunch of people that day, probably hoping not to spook him into killing again,
(2) he spooked anyway,
(3) "hero citizen" takes out killer.
(4) "hero citizen" then sues cops for not being fast enough.  .


So why were the cops locked in the motorcar? Was it some kind of stakeout technique?

The article linked in this one states that after he couldn't get in, he turned to the vic and said 'Now you're going to die.'.

And as I have said to others, if the guy was making shiat up, the judge's ruling wouldn't have consisted of letting the cops off for not doing their jobs, it would have been tossed for lack of merit.

Try and develop SOME critical thinking skills, letting Right Wing Media do all of your thinking for you will eventually catch up with you.
 
2013-08-01 02:57:13 AM

No Soap Radio: Obviously variables at play unreported in the article.

Police engage suspects in a tactical manner in the same way fire fighters approach a scene in a tactical manner. Safety is a priority. The other night when the propane facility had tanks blowing up every four seconds, the fire department wouldn't go in, even though civilian lives were clearly at risk. It just didn't make sense to. In an unlikely attempt to save lives, they'd almost definitely lose theirs.

Police in this situation, I assume, had a plan of attack in mind that was disrupted by the good samaritan. Or, they had called for backup and didn't want to intervene until they could absolutely ensure the guy's capture without further harm to him or themselves.

It's funny because had two cops approached a crazy, knife wielding murderer and it resulted in the murderer getting shot in a struggle, we'd be posting in outrage over how the situation was handled. But two cops follow a protocol and wait for strength in numbers before engaging someone and they're cowards.


So you're saying that "procedure" would allow them to sit there and watch an attack from beginning to end, with a dead victim, and not do anything until "strength in numbers" arrived, even if Knifey McKniferson moved to a new victim, and then another, and then another?

You are completely confused about how this works.
 
2013-08-01 03:04:34 AM

roughridersfan: Teiritzamna: D'oh

this article

That makes more sense and actually has statements from the man who was attacked.

Sounds like the police got on to talk to the conductor. The assailant started banging on the door wanting the police to let him in, but the moment they started walking toward him he attacked the other guy.

Whoever wrote the original submitted article definitely had a lot of bias. It doesn't sound like the police were "hiding" at all, just trying to get more information from the conductor, probably regarding whether he had heard or saw anything.

I guess it would have been better if they had rushed in, guns drawn and yelling. That probably would have made the guy react, too. Darned if they do and darned if they don't in this case.


Yeah, getting "more information" while the victim is getting stabbed. Sounds like you're right, witness interviews ALWAYS come before taking down the bad guy in front of you.

Seriously, a knife wielding psycho tries to attack a person, and the police don't subdue/arrest the guy before conducting interviews, even though the guy is standing RIGHT FARKING THERE?

All I can say to that logic is "wow'...
 
2013-08-01 03:07:05 AM

Smackledorfer: I love the cop derp brigade around here.

Cops move with caution: how dare they, they should have blindly chased just in case the bad guy took action before they were in a good position.

Cops charge after armed man with hostage into an apt and hostage dies: how dare they! They should have let the hostage get dragged out the rear of the apt where the criminal could kill her and possibly more later.

There are a lot of situations I criticize law enforcement, but watching the farkers apply their imaginary video game tactics with hindsight to every siituation gone awry is hillarious.


You serious? It's two cops armed with guns vs. one guy with a knife. You don't need crazy "video game tactics" to see how that should have played out.

1) Guy with knife tries to break into conductor booth with cops inside
2) Cops pull their guns and order man to drop the weapon
1 of 2 outcomes then: either he does and they arrest him or he doesn't and they shoot

Cops are more than willing to shoot innocent people for trying to be secure in their homes during farked up raids, but in an actual situation where there is clear danger and intent by another, they all of a sudden aren't trigger happy? This is another one of those times you should be criticizing them. Police don't need your white knighting, they have their thin blue line for that.
 
2013-08-01 03:09:11 AM

Teiritzamna: D'oh

this article


Yeah, what's special about that article? The guy still got attacked with the cops standing right there, STILL had to take out the attacker himself, and still wasn't assisted by the cops as he sat there bleeding.
 
2013-08-01 03:13:18 AM

Mock26: fnordfocus: Mock26: If the police are not present and are not aware that someone is being attacked then how can they be expected to protect you?  That is what this case is about.  The judge did NOT rule that if the police witness a crime in progress that they can just stand there whistling Dixie.

The Officers were sufficiently aware of the attack to lock themselves in the conductor's cabin.

Oh really?  You have proof of this?  Because the farking article says that they were in the conductor's car.  Not sure if you have ever been on a subway train before, but they are made up of multiple cars, with the conductor being in the front one.  Based on what was actually written in the article it sounds like the police were in the front car and the attack occurred in another car.  Absolutely nothing in the article says that the cops witnessed the attack and then turned their backs on the scene and locked themselves in the conductor's cabin.


No, the motorman sits in a cab in the front of the lead subway car, people sit right outside the door, which is exactly where the victim was.

It even says in the other articles that he attacked the victim when the police "moved towards him" you think that maybe they were wearing welder's masks at the time?
 
2013-08-01 03:20:38 AM

ignacio: Policemen are more for solving crimes than directly intervening in them. I think you're thinking of super heroes subby.


Oh, you're right... They needed to let the guy get killed, THEN they could "solve" it.

Good point, think of all the money we'll save in guns, ammo, body armor, etc...
 
2013-08-01 03:23:07 AM

poot_rootbeer: Someone please point me to some analysis of this ruling that doesn't come from a site which pops up an ad for a "40 Hottest Women In Sports" photogallery?

I know that the precedent is well established that police have extremely limited liability for failure to prevent harm to you, under the general reasoning that it's literally impossible for police to be everywhere at once and act in a manner 100% free of human error.

I do wish the question had been answered as to how the transit police could have been aware that they were in danger, but not that every other person on the train was also in danger.


There are a couple of other links in article itself, no 40 hottest women pop-ups.
 
2013-08-01 03:29:16 AM

Gyrfalcon: Wow, tracking down the actual facts in this story is a nightmare. Here's the judge's ACTUAL ruling:

Chan said that to sue the city, Lozito needed to have had direct contact with the cops in the motorman's booth and they had to have known he was in danger and ignored that, but there was no evidence of that.

So in other words, the cops (who were f*cking cowards, imo) did not know Lozito was having a fight with the suspect, and did not realize he needed help. Therefore, Lozito lacked the elements he needed to prove negligence on the part of the CITY. In addition, the "special duty" actually reads as follows:

city lawyers say his demand for unspecified money damages should be tossed because the police had no "special duty" to protect him or any individual on the train that day-there's a long-standing legal precedent requiring cops to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual's rights.

In other words, the cops felt they should cowardly be able to hide in the conductor's booth away from a madman with a gun because their need to stay alive to protect everyone else trumped Lozito's individual right to be saved from the madman with a deboning knife. Which is technically true.

In a civil suit, the burden is on the plaintiff (in this case, Lozito) to prove his case. He could not prove to the judge's satisfaction that the cops knew he was in danger, or that they had a special duty to him personally (i.e., knowing that he was actually in danger) which would have required them to act. His assertion that they "knew" the knife-wielding madman was outside is not sufficient to create a personal duty: So far as the cops knew (or that Lozito can prove) they knew that the madman was outside BUT was not harming anyone, and wasn't going anywhere till the train pulled into the next station. And for a civil case, that's all that counts.

Life sure sucks, doesn't it?


Then they must have put on blindfolds, since it says he attacked the dude when they started "moving towards him". Either way, their excuse shouldn't stand. They knew he was on a killing spree, and they just let him sit in the subway because they didn't actually "see" him attack somebody? Even if they hadn't been looking at him when he turned to the victim and attacked, I wouldn't buy that excuse, ever.
 
2013-08-01 03:56:38 AM

fredklein: Gyrfalcon: In other words, the cops felt they should cowardly be able to hide in the conductor's booth away from a madman with a gun because their need to stay alive to protect everyone else trumped Lozito's individual right to be saved from the madman with a deboning knife. Which is technically true.

Um... so they hid (and didn't help people) so they could stay alive (nevermind they have guns, etc), in order to... help people?

Does this make any sense whatsoever?


No.

But like I said, it makes enough sense in a CIVIL case to undermine a plaintiff's negligence case when HE is the one with the burden of proving they had a special burden to help him. This isn't a criminal case where the burden would be on a prosecutor to prove the cops did something wrong. This is a civil case where the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that a) there was a duty to act, b) that the defendant breached that duty; and the breach was c) the actual and d) the proximate (legal) cause of his injury. And right out of the gate, the plaintiff here has a very high bar to clear because the courts have absent any specially created duty--like a specific call for help and a showing of immediate harm--the cops have no duty to act. And in a negligence case, without that duty, the rest of the case never gets to happen.

No, it makes zero sense to me either. But like I say all the time, it doesn't matter what the facts are, it's what can be justified in a police report. And if I was writing the report, it would have said just about what I already posted: That they didn't actually see Lozito in danger, nor did he actually request assistance ("Help, I'm being gutted alive!"), and although they did know the guy was the mad killer they were seeking, they did not have reason to believe he was causing IMMINENT danger to anyone on the train, nor was he able to escape until the cops had more backup. They may have thrown in something about being ready to act if they saw imminent peril blah blah blah (I would), but whatever.

These two cops are pieces of cowardly shiat, and one would hope they no longer have jobs--it's safe to say they no longer have backup, since no cop in his or her right mind would want to work with these two cretins. But the problem is not with the NYPD here (except they hired these two dopes) it's with the court rulings in Castle Rock and its progeny; and in the requirements of proving a negligence case. If you want to cry about the mean old cops, you can; but that won't change the fact that the mean old judge really didn't have much choice in making her decision once the report was written. There may have been a better way to attack the cops and the city than a negligence tort--finding the actual facts in the case was like digging through poo to find a diamond--but based on what I could find,  Lozito would have better luck suing his attorneys next for bad advice of counsel.
 
2013-08-01 04:42:01 AM

Gyrfalcon: There may have been a better way to attack the cops and the city than a negligence tort--finding the actual facts in the case was like digging through poo to find a diamond--but based on what I could find


Funny story, when was the last time you were on a train that didn't have cameras?
 
2013-08-01 04:43:35 AM

nero_design: [www.pbase.com image 672x751]

- Australia 2010. June 2nd.  In Melbourne City.
- man at gas station attacks woman
- man stabs woman repeatedly in neck with knife
- Policeman arriving to fuel up his car stands back and watches.
- Policeman ignores screaming woman and incredulously begins to film the incident with his cell phone.
- man with knife continues to stab woman in hands, face, neck, back, chest. stomach.
- man with knife threatens to kill anyone who intervenes when other drivers try to stop him.
- man with knife continues to stab woman in hands, face, neck, back, chest. stomach.
- Policeman said to be frightened and moves a safe distance away. Continues filming.
- man with knife continues to stab woman in hands, face, neck, back, chest. stomach.
- man with knife begins to pour gasoline over dying woman who is screaming for help.
- man with knife attempts to light the woman on fire.  People try to stop him but are forced back by the knife.
- Policeman ignores pleas to intervene.  Continues filming from cellphone.
- woman (victim) is set alight.  Sustains burns to 100% of her body (see article).
- Woman dies.
- Policeman later investigated to failing to act (see article).


Did he then post the video on YouTube with a witty comment?!  Calling him shiat would be an insult to shiat.  He should be forced to clean prison toilets with his tongue for the rest of his life.
 
2013-08-01 05:17:59 AM

Dimensio: Police may, if they wish, watch a violent crime occur without intervening.


That's some bullshiat. You wanna be a cop, you gotta be a cop.

If you stand by and let someone get hurt when you could have helped by placing yourself in danger, that's cowardice. As a private citizen, you're allowed to be a pile of cowardly shiat. As a public servant, you're not. You're honor-bound to help or die trying.
 
2013-08-01 06:02:14 AM

basemetal: What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?


To extract the largest pension they can get.
 
Xai
2013-08-01 06:11:09 AM

Vector R: [i1211.photobucket.com image 600x600]

/I can't wait to get out of this state


If guns were available to all, he would have had a gun. How many people would be dead now if he had?

I would rather face a crazed russian with a knife unarmed than a crazed russian with a semi automatic rifle and i had a handgun.
 
2013-08-01 06:17:12 AM

Darth_Lukecash: Peter von Nostrand:

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry

At the very least, there should be a whole bunch of dead criminals lying around, no longer able to prey on the weak and hapless!


There would be, but criminals are looking for victims. Someone openly carrying a firearm isn't a victim, that's an adversary.

You think when some dirt bag knocks over a liquor store or 7-11 he's thinking, "I hope that clerk sees me coming in and has a chance to get to a gun. I'd love to get into a shoot out!"
 
2013-08-01 06:45:57 AM

Xai: If guns were available to all, he would have had a gun. How many people would be dead now if he had?


Probably just two, because after he sucker-shot the first random person, everyone else, who would also be armed in your scenario, would have shot him.
 
2013-08-01 07:36:43 AM

FedExPope: Smackledorfer: I love the cop derp brigade around here.

Cops move with caution: how dare they, they should have blindly chased just in case the bad guy took action before they were in a good position.

Cops charge after armed man with hostage into an apt and hostage dies: how dare they! They should have let the hostage get dragged out the rear of the apt where the criminal could kill her and possibly more later.

There are a lot of situations I criticize law enforcement, but watching the farkers apply their imaginary video game tactics with hindsight to every siituation gone awry is hillarious.

You serious? It's two cops armed with guns vs. one guy with a knife. You don't need crazy "video game tactics" to see how that should have played out.

1) Guy with knife tries to break into conductor booth with cops inside
2) Cops pull their guns and order man to drop the weapon
1 of 2 outcomes then: either he does and they arrest him or he doesn't and they shoot

Cops are more than willing to shoot innocent people for trying to be secure in their homes during farked up raids, but in an actual situation where there is clear danger and intent by another, they all of a sudden aren't trigger happy? This is another one of those times you should be criticizing them. Police don't need your white knighting, they have their thin blue line for that.


As I sarcastically, obliquely noted in my own response to Smackledorfer, if they had used their guns there would have been a backstop of A TRAIN CAR FULL OF CITIZENS.
 
2013-08-01 07:51:31 AM

Lsherm: youknowme: One Bad Apple: Lsherm:


Son, there's an a art to trolling. .

Fixed

Care to try that one again?

The English language is lost on you...

Oh, and he got one...

Frankly, I thought he was too obvious.



I think he should get bonus points for getting someone with something so obvious.
Youknowme has probably fallen for this too:
i.huffpost.com
 
2013-08-01 08:17:04 AM

Spanky McStupid: Kitty Genovese is a prime reason for carrying.
Old school crime victim.


That's actually largely a myth.  See the APA's breakdown of it here:
http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/09/tall-tales.aspx

TLDR version: there were two attacks, not three; it took 10 minutes, not 37 minutes; multiple people called the police, not zero.

She was certainly brutally attacked and murdered, and the bystander effect is real, but Genovese's death isn't an example of it.
 
2013-08-01 08:20:44 AM
This is a good thing. Their job is not to protect you. You do not want them "protecting" you. Their job is to show up after a crime; investigate and hopefully arrest the offender.
 
2013-08-01 08:23:44 AM

Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

Gun ban advocates rarely possess firearms.

Yes, it's the people that don't own guns and/or want some restrictions on them that are paranoid


This was actually the smartest thing you posted in this entire thread. In hindsight you probably should have stopped here.
 
2013-08-01 08:34:42 AM

Gyrfalcon: But like I said, it makes enough sense in a CIVIL case to undermine a plaintiff's negligence case when HE is the one with the burden of proving they had a special burden to help him.


They are cops. Their entire JOB is to help people by arresting criminals. If that doesn't create a 'special burden', I don't know what does.

absent any specially created duty--like a specific call for help and a showing of immediate harm-

None of the guys victims called for help? The cops are so stupid they don't know being stabbed is harmful?

-the cops have no duty to act.

Then why have them? Really?

No, it makes zero sense to me either.

But like I say all the time, it doesn't matter what the facts are, it's what can be justified in a police report. And if I was writing the report, it would have said just about what I already posted: That they didn't actually see Lozito in danger


Wasn't it stated that the guy started stabbing 'as they [the cops] moved toward him'? Were they blinded?

nor did he actually request assistance ("Help, I'm being gutted alive!")

Um, I find that hard to believe. But even absent that, I'd think that seeing a guy stabbed is enough evidence that he needs help.

and although they did know the guy was the mad killer they were seeking, they did not have reason to believe he was causing IMMINENT danger to anyone on the train

Mad killer (your words, not mine), standing there with a knife raised == 'no danger'??? Cops shoot people for driving a truck kinda the same color as a wanted fugitive. They shoot people for holding a wallet. Or a set of keys. Or a candy bar. And a 'mad killer' with a knife raised doesn't meet the requirements??


I seriously don't see how they can excuse any of this.
 
2013-08-01 09:20:57 AM

untaken_name: Peter von Nostrand: I'm not really sure what your point here is. I don't have a problem with gun ownership

You were framing the debate in such a way as to cast aspersions on gun owners while completely exonerating non-gun-owners. I was simply re-framing it in an opposite manner to show that your characterization could be easily countered.


If you go back to the initial post I was responding to I'm sure you'll realize that you're mistaken
 
2013-08-01 10:34:45 AM

edmo: Give them some lip and see how fast they intervene to Taser your ass.


I thought this is exactly the situation that the cops needed Tasers for..

why did they not Taser the guy with the knife?
 
2013-08-01 11:03:25 AM

Mikey1969: Bit'O'Gristle: The duties of a police officer are to protect and serve - unless they don't feel like it, apparently. A Manhattan Supreme Court Justice has ruled that the City of New York has no legal obligation to protect its citizens, even if armed police are present at the scene of a dangerous incident.

So if i read TFA right, the policemen locked themselves in another car when they saw the crazed knife wielding psycho and have no duty to protect citizens? Hmmmm..something is fishy here. We aren't getting the whole story, or the reporter is a liberal.

If we "weren't getting the whole story", then the judge would have dismissed the case for lack of merit or for insufficient evidence. Instead, he makes an excuse for the cops and tells the court that he is literally letting them off the hook for kit doing their jobs.

Seriously, you've got to learn to read between the lines. The very things the judge DIDN'T do give you all the data a smart person would need.

Hell, it's all a garden slug would need.

/Or an NYPD cop


'we have the full story'

'read between the lines, anyone smart does!'

Nice work there.
 
2013-08-01 12:05:11 PM

petec: edmo: Give them some lip and see how fast they intervene to Taser your ass.

I thought this is exactly the situation that the cops needed Tasers for..

why did they not Taser the guy with the knife?


The man possessed a knife. Attempting to subdue him could have resulted in severe injury.
 
2013-08-01 12:35:59 PM

starsrift: As I sarcastically, obliquely noted in my own response to Smackledorfer, if they had used their guns there would have been a backstop of A TRAIN CAR FULL OF CITIZENS.


So 360 degrees of citizens, then? I'm not sure you've ever actually SEEN a train.
 
2013-08-01 12:39:36 PM

Peter von Nostrand: untaken_name: Peter von Nostrand: I'm not really sure what your point here is. I don't have a problem with gun ownership

You were framing the debate in such a way as to cast aspersions on gun owners while completely exonerating non-gun-owners. I was simply re-framing it in an opposite manner to show that your characterization could be easily countered.

If you go back to the initial post I was responding to I'm sure you'll realize that you're mistaken


So...you were not trying to be sarcastic there, you were actually in full agreement with <b>Dimensio</b>? Maybe I'm just cynical, but it really didn't come off that way.
 
2013-08-01 04:42:13 PM

starsrift: FedExPope: Smackledorfer: I love the cop derp brigade around here.

Cops move with caution: how dare they, they should have blindly chased just in case the bad guy took action before they were in a good position.

Cops charge after armed man with hostage into an apt and hostage dies: how dare they! They should have let the hostage get dragged out the rear of the apt where the criminal could kill her and possibly more later.

There are a lot of situations I criticize law enforcement, but watching the farkers apply their imaginary video game tactics with hindsight to every siituation gone awry is hillarious.

You serious? It's two cops armed with guns vs. one guy with a knife. You don't need crazy "video game tactics" to see how that should have played out.

1) Guy with knife tries to break into conductor booth with cops inside
2) Cops pull their guns and order man to drop the weapon
1 of 2 outcomes then: either he does and they arrest him or he doesn't and they shoot

Cops are more than willing to shoot innocent people for trying to be secure in their homes during farked up raids, but in an actual situation where there is clear danger and intent by another, they all of a sudden aren't trigger happy? This is another one of those times you should be criticizing them. Police don't need your white knighting, they have their thin blue line for that.

As I sarcastically, obliquely noted in my own response to Smackledorfer, if they had used their guns there would have been a backstop of A TRAIN CAR FULL OF CITIZENS.


Do police no longer carry nightsticks?
 
2013-08-01 04:43:52 PM

untaken_name: starsrift: As I sarcastically, obliquely noted in my own response to Smackledorfer, if they had used their guns there would have been a backstop of A TRAIN CAR FULL OF CITIZENS.

So 360 degrees of citizens, then? I'm not sure you've ever actually SEEN a train.


And neither have you, obviously.
 
2013-08-01 10:03:42 PM

basemetal: What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?


To protect the rich.
 
Displayed 167 of 167 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report