Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

8014 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2013 at 10:24 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report