More confirmation: Police have no obligation to protect the public...

[itchin]

I doubt he would make it up and sue. The cities defense was the cops aren't obligated to do their job if they get scared. The judge even said that in the ruling. Didn't even dispute that they were cowering while an unarmed civilian did their job.

 

[Acera]

All we have to go on here is this short article about a man trying to sue the city. We sure don't have to take the word of someone that risked his life to save others. However, I'm not going to suggest that he is a liar just like I'm not going to suggest all cops are cowards.

Not really, there is a ton of stuff on this incident out there from the NY news sources, recent and also from when it happened. A search of the officers names yields a number of different accounts. However from what I read, the citizens account seems to be the most creditable. Sure the truth is somewhere between what he says and what the officers say, just thinking it's closer to his side than theirs right now.

 

[Mic]

If the article is correct, they are a disgrace to the job, he is a hero, and the NYPD should be ashamed.

 

[Pilgrim]

If this article is to be believed, how can any policeman justify idly standing by while a civilian engages a madman? How is that in spirit of their oath "To Serve and Protect"?

Listen, I know some of you ex-LEOs can argue about the court ruling that police don't have an obligation to protect the innocent but you can't convince me that it's right... and don't give me that BS about "me not being a cop and not knowing what I'm talking about". I was a soldier once and understood what it meant to don that uniform in the defense of others. I assumed cops did the same...

 

[hkusp1]

I think it was Louisiana a few years ago one of the pd heads came out and told all the officers to stop chasing bad guys because the officers kept getting hurt and causing the insurance premiums to go up. I'll see if I can find the article.


Sent from a creepy ass cracka.

 

[matefrio]

How long did the incident last? I bet it was only seconds.

We don't have enough information to judge the LEOs actions.

In a crowd of people on a subway was there a path for the officers to get in and help out or even take a shot?

Did the LEO's expect a civilian to go towards the danger unarmed and engage the target? It could have messed up their plans or plan making just 30 seconds and that'd be more than enough for this to have happened.

 

[AcidFlashGordon]

You understand incorrectly. If protecting the public from criminals is not in the job description, and neither is stopping a crime in progress, then what is the purpose of a police force? Traffic enforcement? Investigation in the aftermath of a crime? Police work is starting to sound downright cushy by these definitions.

Basically the highlighted part. The cops arrive at the scene of violence just in time to draw the chalk outline around the body.

As for those "suggesting" the NYPD should have shot the perp, I disagree with that....and the reason is the example of the Empire State Building incident. Were not ALL the nine civilian injuries (3 gunshot and 6 fragments/shrapnel) caused BY NYPD gunfire? The perp shot the guy he was after and was running away when the cops arrived. He pointed his gun at the cops but never got the chance to fire as they opened up on him (and the innocent victims).

Bloomturd's comment about the incident was "priceless:"

During a press conference held on Friday, Mayor Bloomberg had said some individuals may have been shot at by NYPD.

 

[ROGER4314]

This stretches my memory banks a bit but I believe the Supreme Court ruling refers to liability of LEO's for not protecting a person from harm. If you are a crime victim, the cops can't be sued for not protecting you from physical harm.

I see no cowardice in taking cover when bullets are flying. In fact, only a nut would intentionally expose himself to harm for a job. These guys have families, too and they want to go home at the end of the day just like anyone else. The statement "Discretion is the better part of Valor." comes to mind. Being paid a wage doesn't require an LEO to risk his life unnecessarily.

The fact that the weapon was a blade is unimportant. As an LEO, I would have shot the guy instead of trying to disarm him.

Before I left OK, I disarmed a knife wielding young man who was flipped out over the breakup of a relationship. The police officer that I was with backed off and I fought him. In retrospect, I would NOT do that again. I would contain the guy and call for help. It was my choice and I didn't blame the cop for backing away. I made the choice and it wasn't a smart one even though it ended reasonably well. HE got cut. I came out unscratched. It could have gone the other way.

Lesson learned? Women are not worth that kind of shxt!

Flash

 

[navyguy]

Before I left OK, I disarmed a knife wielding young man who was flipped out over the breakup of a relationship. The police officer that I was with backed off and I fought him. In retrospect, I would NOT do that again. I would contain the guy and call for help. It was my choice and I didn't blame the cop for backing away. I made the choice and it wasn't a smart one even though it ended reasonably well. HE got cut. I came out unscratched. It could have gone the other way.

Lesson learned? Women are not worth that kind of shxt!

Flash

I understand that and the premise that LEO don't have an obligation to protect. So, in the situation you related to, what if that guy grabbed the women and started cutting her face up? Would it be okay for you and your partner to just stand back and not assist her? Not saying you would, but would it be legally acceptable.

 

[navyguy]

Your safety is your responsibility.

And therein lies the rub. The law has spoken and the people of NYC are responsible for their own protection, yet they have been disarmed. I think an incident that caused injury or death because of the no gun law and no right to protect would make an interesting SCOTUS case.

 

[ROGER4314]

I've been thinking about this for a while and formed a conclusion. The knife wielding nut was battling it out with the hero and that kept the LEO's from shooting the guy. I believe shooting him was justified and the good guy was in the way!

Flash

 

[TheDan]

So what, exactly, is the point of having a police force then?

Investigation and arrest after a crime has been committed... I pretty much agree with that because I feel the police should not be involved until a crime is committed. If you put the police in charge of preventing crime then we are headed towards people being arrested for thoughts and future crime.

Now if you're witnessing an act of violence and don't do anything to stop it, especially when you have the authority and means to do so, you're a shitty person. Everyone has to make that judgement call for themselves, however...

 

[ShootingTheBull]

Once upon a time, the police officers "walked a beat". They were a deterrent force. They were there before the crime happened. And if someone shouted "help! police!" they came running.

And nobody was afraid of them. They didn't "lord it" over anybody. They were pleasant. In school we were taught that if you were lost, go up to a police officer and ask for help, etc.

Nowadays, I think the only times I see police are when they're staking out a road to trap speeders, or when they're parked in a preventative capacity in front of a Wal-Mart.

 

[navyguy]

I pretty much agree with that because I feel the police should not be involved until a crime is committed.

And I agree with that to some extent. But to the original post/situation, other than the testimony of Joseph Lozito that the two police officers were cowering behind a shield of some sort while he battled the bad guy I guess we don't know for sure, and we don't really have a time line so maybe those LEO's were on their way as the SHTF. The entire thing might have been 10 seconds long. I've not read the transcript of the trial, so I'll defer to that. But a defense in the order of "they had no duty to protect" doesn't cut it with me. Even though they they don't need to protect, they should surely be required to stop an unlawful act in progress. Vis a vis, a guy cutting away on someone's head.

Joseph Lozito seems credible to me. But then again, I've been duped before.
Amazing Serial Killer Survival Story - YouTube

 

[cbigclarke]

There is one major problem with this story. The motormans cab is not large enough to house 2 people. From inside it your can not see behind into the interior.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Acera]

navyguy, that was a good video. Says a lot about that police force.

 

[navyguy]

There is one major problem with this story. The motormans cab is not large enough to house 2 people. From inside it your can not see behind into the interior.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Perhaps, I've not been in one of those motor rooms, but apparently, the one officer testified that he was indeed in that motor room and observed the goings on.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I know 2 things

1) many facts are missing
2) getting cut up sucks

 

[cbigclarke]

I know 2 things

1) many facts are missing
2) getting cut up sucks

And stay the F out of NY

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

And stay the F out of NY

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Right. I know 3 things...