In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Cops look on while victim disarms his assailant

Comments

  • sgm hagsgm hag Member Posts: 1,028 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
    Another reason never to be disarmed.


    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/judge-rules-cops-can-twiddle-thumbs-watch-civilians-are-murdered



    I'll wager that if the victum pulled out his own knife to defend himself, the cops would've warned him to drop it and then shot him if he didn't![:(!]
  • DocDoc Member Posts: 13,898 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Many years ago the Supreme Idiots... er, Court ruled that police have no obligation to protect a specific individual, only to keep the peace in general.
    ....................................................................................................
    Too old to live...too young to die...
  • Sam06Sam06 Member Posts: 21,244 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I feel like I woke up on Bizarro Earth.
    RLTW

  • bigoutsidebigoutside Member Posts: 19,443
    edited November -1
    Its pretty well established. That way the police can't be sued for not responding quickly enough to save you.
    The fire department can watch your house burn as well.

    I'd love to read the story. But my anti virus suite doesn't like your link.
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 37,717 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    but you sure as hell will be required to pay taxes for their wages and equipment
  • allen griggsallen griggs Member Posts: 35,692 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Here it is:

    Judge Rules Cops Can Twiddle Thumbs, Watch As Civilians Are Murdered

    By Dabney Bailey, Tue, July 30, 2013

    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.

    The case centered around Joseph Lozito, who was stabbed in the face, hands, and neck by deranged attacker Maksim Gelman. As reported by Gothamist:

    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.

    Police representatives argued that they had no "special duty" to intervene, and judge Margaret Chan agreed. Chan ruled that the police had no reason to believe that Lozito was in danger at the time, despite the fact that, by Chan's own words, "The dismissal of this lawsuit does not lessen Mr. Lozito's bravery or the pain of his injuries. Mr. Lozito heroically maneuvered the knife away from Gelman and subdued him on the subway floor."

    The ruling leaves New Yorkers with a burning question: what's the point of having a police force if the officers twiddle their thumbs when they are needed most and stop and frisk citizens when they're needed least? To make matters worse, New York has some of the strictest gun control policies in the country. If citizens cannot defend themselves and officers will not defend citizens either, what other options are available?

    In Lozito's case, the answer is to apparently hope that you survive and then wait for your attacker to get thrown in jail. Gelman received 200 years in prison plus an additional 25 years - for all that it mattered - for stabbing Lozito.

    What is your take on the story? Should the New York Police Department grow a pair, or at this point are the citizens of New York better off throwing the baby out with the bathwater and dissolving the NYPD altogether?

    Source: Gothamist
  • LesWVaLesWVa Member Posts: 10,490 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by sgm hag
    quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
    Another reason never to be disarmed.


    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/judge-rules-cops-can-twiddle-thumbs-watch-civilians-are-murdered



    I'll wager that if the victum pulled out his own knife to defend himself, the cops would've shot him, then warned him to drop it.[:(!]



    Fixed it.
  • MobuckMobuck Member Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    BUT,BUT,BUT, They just want to "go home at the end of their shift"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • eastbankeastbank Member Posts: 4,052 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    i don,t claim to know what was going thru the mentioned officers heads, but i,ll bet most officers would have acted differenty and shot the SOB. according to no one.
  • JohnnyBGoodJohnnyBGood Member Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Supreme Court ruled years ago that the police have no responsibility to protect the individual.

    Warren v. District of Columbia, about 1975.

    Johnny
  • Winston BodeWinston Bode Member Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If I had to guess I'd say the two "Officers" were probably female.
    This would not surprise me in the least as we had a female officer a few years ago who would not get out of her car on a Disturbance call until a male officer had arrived. She was even seen making the block several times on one call before another officer arrived.
Sign In or Register to comment.