Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

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

  1. #1
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,056

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

    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.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #2
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.
    Police aren't required to protect people.
    This has been decided by the Supreme Court for a while now.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #3
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,386

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  4. #4
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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/po...otus.html?_r=0
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  5. #5
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

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

    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].

  6. #6
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    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.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    East Coast
    Last Seen
    10-15-17 @ 01:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    102

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

    Police are here to protect the state.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.
    Protect and Serve is a lie.

    The job of the police is not protect or be bodyguards to people, but to enforce the law.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •