[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Miscellaneous See other Miscellaneous Articles Title: Did the NYC cops at the biker beatdown have a duty to intervene? “No” says court precedents Now that we have found out that at least 5 New York City cops were at the scene where Alexian Lien was pulled from his vehicle in front of his family and beaten by a biker gang, understandable outrage has come from the public. Calls for these officers to lose there jobs, be arrested and sued have been prevalent, but will they? While it is true that 1 cop has all ready been arrested, that was for his active participation of the beating, the fates of the other cops who just stood by and watched has yet to be determined. Would it surprise you that legally these cops have no duty to interfere and stop a crime against an individual? In 1856 the Supreme Court ruled in South v Maryland that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws But that was over 150 years ago, things have surely changed since, no? No. The courts have ruled consistently for the past 30 years that the police are under no obligation to stop a crime and protect a person. In July of this year the courts in New York City dismissed a lawsuit brought on by Joseph Lozito. Lozito tackled and subdued spree murderer Maksim Gelman after Gelman killed 4 and injured 5 while both men were on the No. 3 train pulling out of Penn Station. Lozito’s heroics earned him a couple of stab wounds to the head requiring 22 stiches and 20 staples to close it up. Why was Lozito suing? Because there were two transit cops in that train car with him who didn’t intervene for the 60 seconds that he was struggling with Gelman. Those officers waitied until the threat was subdued and Lozito immobilized the mass murderer before they calmly tapped him on the shoulder and told him “you can get up now”. According to Manhattan judge Margaret Chan, the transit officers—who were reportedly searching for Gelman at the time—did not have an obligation to aid Lozito, as there was no evidence to suggest they knew he was in trouble. But Lozito, a father of two, says that’s not the case, and that two people—including Gelman himself—had gotten the officers’ attention, and they failed to protect both Lozito and the other people riding with him in the subway car. I guess watching a man get stabbed for 60 seconds doesn’t constitute “trouble”. What did the cops think, this was just boys being boys? Then there is the DC Court of Appeals ruling in the case Warren v DC in 1981 in which the court once again stated that police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way. In this case, Carolyn Warren and her female roommate were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their third female roommate downstairs screaming as she was being raped by a pair of intruders. The women upstairs called 911 and waited. After 30 minutes when they saw a police car drive by and their roommates screams stopped they assumed the police had arrived and went downstairs. The police hadn’t arrived and for the next 14 hours the three women were raped, robbed and beaten. By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. Funny thing about that “special relationship” vernacular, you would think it would cover people with restraining orders or who were otherwise at risk of danger. Yet once again the courts side with the police not having any duty to actually protect a person. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Castle Rock v Gonzales that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband. These are but a few cases in which the courts throughout the land have reiterated that the police do not have the duty to protect or serve YOU the individual. It’s more like an ethereal idea of protect and serve than actually doing either. What does this have to do with firearms? Plenty. The gun controllers and anti-gun zealots have long boasted about how the right to keep and bear arms is an antiquated and unnecessary relic of the past because we have the police to protect us. Yet in reality, you can have a cop right in front of you while you are being a victim of a violent crime and they are fully allowed to legally just stand their and watch you die. They can ignore your pleas for help and your 911 calls and even show “demonstrable abuse and ineptitude” and still be in the clear. Since the cops have no duty to protect us, if you don’t protect yourself, who will? With the court ruling consistently on the side of sideline cops who just stand their and watch, chances are the 4 other police officers on the scene in New York who stood and just watched Alexian Lien beaten in front of them will not be charged or sued successfully. I guess at the end of the day, the shield is just for their protection. The rest of us are on our own. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
Of course. They feel threatened for their well-being. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Since when does one need a court decision to act with sanity? Of course they had a duty to intervene, and *every* retired member of the NYPD who is on my e- mail chain feels the same way. I have to laugh at the City's effort to sell itself to tourists. WTF would anyone spend thousands to visit a crime ridden city where the cops have no obligation to protect citizens? Just plain insanity.
When I worked concert security, I used to get to beat the crap out of people all the time. It just went with the territory. Besides, the police have no duty to the individual citizen, only to the public at large. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
of course the 'normal' instinct would be to intervene, but this article is great because the average dope today always, without fail, defends the police & responds to police criticism with the canard "they keep us safe!" Of course that is BS. the cops & their lawyers are the 1st to argue that theyre not obligated to keep anyone safe. Articles such as this one shatter that silly stupid myth that cops keep people safe. most of thew time they clean up the mess & fine!imprison people needlessly.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||