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 43
    More: Asinine, Judges' Rules, New York, Margaret Chan, dereliction of duty, supreme court justices, Gothamist  
•       •       •

7993 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2013 at 10:24 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-31 09:44:27 PM
5 votes:

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 10:52:03 PM
4 votes:

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 10:50:35 PM
4 votes:
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 10:37:58 PM
4 votes:

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 08:49:26 PM
4 votes:
What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?
2013-07-31 04:59:49 PM
4 votes:
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 11:38:34 PM
3 votes:
i1211.photobucket.com

/I can't wait to get out of this state
2013-07-31 11:26:18 PM
3 votes:

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 08:54:44 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-08-01 01:37:38 AM
2 votes:
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?
2013-07-31 11:25:26 PM
2 votes:
 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 10:50:07 PM
2 votes:

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 10:48:52 PM
2 votes:
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 10:38:21 PM
2 votes:

Lsherm:


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


Fixed
2013-07-31 10:38:21 PM
2 votes:
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 10:34:04 PM
2 votes:
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 10:26:30 PM
2 votes:

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 08:59:38 PM
2 votes:
Give them some lip and see how fast they intervene to Taser your ass.
2013-08-01 08:17:04 AM
1 votes:

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 06:45:57 AM
1 votes:

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 06:17:12 AM
1 votes:

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 03:56:38 AM
1 votes:

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 02:29:33 AM
1 votes:

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 12:20:26 AM
1 votes:
Policemen are more for solving crimes than directly intervening in them. I think you're thinking of super heroes subby.
2013-07-31 11:28:43 PM
1 votes:

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 11:22:09 PM
1 votes:
Just one more occasion to highlight the necessity of the 2nd amendment
2013-07-31 11:20:35 PM
1 votes:

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 11:17:04 PM
1 votes:

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 11:15:40 PM
1 votes:

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 11:05:58 PM
1 votes:
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 10:56:42 PM
1 votes:

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 10:44:18 PM
1 votes:
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 10:42:33 PM
1 votes:

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 10:41:41 PM
1 votes:
Under legal obligation or not, locking themselves in the conductor's cabin is rather unbecoming. Medal of bravery not yours.
2013-07-31 10:41:28 PM
1 votes:

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 10:40:27 PM
1 votes:
So, has New York passed a "you have to roll up into a ball and take it" law yet?
2013-07-31 10:37:16 PM
1 votes:
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 10:36:45 PM
1 votes:
Kitty Genovese is a prime reason for carrying.
Old school crime victim.
2013-07-31 09:43:06 PM
1 votes:

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 09:17:46 PM
1 votes:
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 08:46:49 PM
1 votes:

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 06:26:01 PM
1 votes:
And they are following precedent in doing so.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. DC
2013-07-31 05:09:49 PM
1 votes:
Police representatives argued that they had no "special duty" to intervene

So therefore citizens have no obligation to assist an officer in distress then?
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report