• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero who subdued killer

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero Joseph Lozito who subdued killer Maksim Gelman and was stabbed seven times in process - NYPOST.com

But city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island dad stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman — a courtroom maneuver the subway hero calls “disgraceful.”

A judge is currently deciding whether Lozito, who sued the city last year for failing to prevent the attack, will get his day in court.

The drug-fueled Gelman had fatally stabbed three people in Brooklyn and killed another with a car during a 28-hour rampage when he entered an uptown No. 3 train on Feb. 12, 2011.

You gotta have some balls to claim police don't have a special duty to protect or at the very least ASSIST a law abiding citizen trying to stop a serial killer.
 
City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero Joseph Lozito who subdued killer Maksim Gelman and was stabbed seven times in process - NYPOST.com



You gotta have some balls to claim police don't have a special duty to protect or at the very least ASSIST a law abiding citizen trying to stop a serial killer.

This is why I'm pro concealed carry. Cops don't have a duty and it is sad. People want more nanny state protection and don't understand that the nanny state will agree...but then claim they have no responsibility to do so when it counts.
 
City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero Joseph Lozito who subdued killer Maksim Gelman and was stabbed seven times in process - NYPOST.com

You gotta have some balls to claim police don't have a special duty to protect or at the very least ASSIST a law abiding citizen trying to stop a serial killer.

Seconding Harry. He's exactly right. SCOTUS ruled that law enforcement has no duty to protect. From 2005:

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
 
I would be interested in hearing the opinion of the SCOTUS regarding the specifics of this case, in which it is alleged that two officers were actually witnessing the violent crime in progress and refused to respond, as it pertains to the 14th Amendment which provides… “nor [shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

A ruling (opinion) of the court on the specifics of one case, may not be the same as another. Past SCOTUS interpretations on specific cases should not be taken as the law itself, and necessarily applied to any case involving law enforcement's failure to act, especially when witnessing a violent crime in progress.

Take for instance the Supreme Court case Castle Rock v. Gonzales that MaggieD made reference to, which basically concerned a restraining order that was modified to allow the father visitations, along with the fact that she was trying to sue. In the context of those specifics I can agree with the following.

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES

“The procedural component of the Due Process Clause does not protect everything that might be described as a “benefit”: “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire” and “more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). Such entitlements are “ ‘of course, … not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.’ ” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 709 (1976)”

But, ultimately I agree with Stevens’ dissenting opinion that the court should not have decide the issue itself, but instead deferred to the 10th Circuit court's finding of whether or not an arrest was mandatory under Colorado law or certify the question to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Regardless, this issue only further validates the 2nd Amendment, even as it pertains to open or concealed carry [keep (possess) to bear (carry) arms].
 
The SCOTUS opinion would largely depend on what the law is in New York or wherever this occured, but typically officers aren't required to intervene on behalf of an individual. This is not true where a "special duty" exists, and this particular case does not seem to meet the criteria. Had the officers somehow made the victim less safe by their actions than he otherwise would have been, he'd have a much stronger case.
 
but typically officers aren't required to intervene on behalf of an individual.

I did not know that and frankly I find it disturbing. I don’t expect a cop to help me if he doesn’t know I am in trouble. I don’t expect them to go on a suicide mission either. But if I am being attacked by an assailant a police officer SHOULD have a duty to intervene. Seriously, if they aren’t professionally or legally obligated to do that then what the hell are they for? Just doing the paperwork after the fact?

It really does strengthen the argument for concealed carry. I know the old adage “Police, there in minutes when seconds matter”. But now I am hearing that even if they are there at the moment the crime is going down they aren’t obligated to intervene?

That’s messed up. In the military if I fail to do my duty, regardless of the danger, I am in for some serious ramifications. I realize police are civilians, but at the very least they should be able to lose their jobs for not stepping in.
 
It really does strengthen the argument for concealed carry. I know the old adage “Police, there in minutes when seconds matter”. But now I am hearing that even if they are there at the moment the crime is going down they aren’t obligated to intervene?
This is from a NC appeals court decision, it seems to provide a good summary of the law as it's been interpreted by the SCOTUS:

Our law is that in the absence of a special relationship, such as exists when a victim is in custody or the police have promised to protect a particular person, law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.

What I find disturbing is that it's illegal to carry a gun in NYC, as well as any knife that can reasonably be used for personal protection. Haven't heard of this creating a "special duty" as it's currently defined, but it seems to me if the state is going to prevent you from using reasonable means to protect yourself, it should be culpable for not acting in your defense - they are creating a dependency on police for protection.
 
This is why I'm pro concealed carry. Cops
don't have a duty and it is sad. People
want more nanny state protection and don't understand that the nanny state will agree...but then claim they have no responsibility to do so when it counts.

You and I both but conceal carry is also a commentary on the practical application of law enforcement.

Truth is Police around my parts will tell you out right to not depend on them for your personal safety and it makes complete sense.
 
You and I both but conceal carry is also a commentary on the practical application of law enforcement.

Truth is Police around my parts will tell you out right to not depend on them for your personal safety and it makes complete sense.

Same here. They can't get their in time to save you. Their primary job is to catch criminals...and that means someone already did something.
 
Seconding Harry. He's exactly right. SCOTUS ruled that law enforcement has no duty to protect. From 2005:



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Awfully convenient in case a normal person stumbles upon a back-alley deal between a cop and a gangster. If the gangster wins the cop can just walk away and pretend to see nothing. If the normal person wins he can claim. "Uhh, I was scared."

Tough situation because you WANT the cop to help. They sought out a job that involves resolving conflict so you think/hope they would have the guts. Unfortunately you cant force everyone to be brave.
 
Back
Top Bottom