Reply With Quote
amazing
http://gothamist.com/2013/07/26/subw...uit_agains.php
Subway Stabbing Victim Can't Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him
A man who was brutally stabbed by Brooklyn subway slasher Maksim Gelman two years ago had his negligence case against the city dismissed in court yesterday, despite the fact that two transit officers had locked themselves in a motorman's car only a few feet from him at the time of the attack.
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.
The city, meanwhile, claimed that the NYPD had no "special duty" to intervene at the time, and that they were in the motorman's car because they believed Gelman had a gun. And Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan has sided with the city, noting that there was no evidence the cops were aware Lozito was in danger at the time.
Chan did however, note the heroism of Lozito's actions: "The dismissal of this lawsuit does not lessen Mr. Lozito’s bravery or the pain of his injuries," she wrote in her decision yesterday. "Mr. Lozito heroically maneuvered the knife away from Gelman and subdued him on the subway floor." Gelman was sentenced to 200 years in prison in January 2012; he was sentenced to an additional 25 years for Lozito's stabbing the following month.
amazing
Not really. It has always been this way.
Unless there is a specific statute which creates one, there is no duty for anyone to rescue anyone.
cops "believed Gelman had a gun"
and the trigger-happy cops didn't have guns? really W T F
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-31-2013 at 01:48 PM.
It's funny how many people refuse to believe this. The only person with a duty to protect you, is you.
sup DMC
sup TheGreatYacht
True or false:
Had there been evidence that the cops were aware of the danger, the court would have allowed the lawsuit against the city to proceed.
damn found me
Why were they hiding from a man they believed had a gun if they were not aware of the danger
Want some more cases that prove cops have no duty to protect you?.....................
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, DeShaney v. Winnebago, Warren v. District of Columbia, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)
Yeah, i don't see a true or false in there.
I'm betting you don't answer.
I'm also betting you move the goalposts again.
There was evidence of danger, reason why the cops hid and locked themselves up. False.
Go through these case by case as well to find any discrepancies too. Curious to see what you find.
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, DeShaney v. Winnebago, Warren v. District of Columbia, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)
My mistake Blake. Didn't read this correctly. To answer your question, true, they would have allowed the lawsuit to proceed, and Lozito would have lost because cops have no duty to protect you, as evidenced by all the cases I've shown you.
A real judge said there was none.
Her opinion goes Tim Duncan on your opinion.
Easy bets.
Go through these case by case as well to find any discrepancies too. Curious to see what you find.
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, DeShaney v. Winnebago, Warren v. District of Columbia, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)
Well there you go.
Since the second part of your post is silly conjecture, to answer your op, yes, since cops are paid to serve and protect, they therefore have a duty to serve and protect.
Another fine thread.
It's obvious you didn't look up a single case.Well there you go.
Since the second part of your post is silly conjecture, to answer your op, yes, since cops are paid to serve and protect, they therefore have a duty to serve and protect.
Another fine thread.
Warren vs. District of Columbia
"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."
Do I really need to go case by case to demonstrate that police have no duty to protect?
Oh look Blake, SCOTUS decided to chime in!
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.
Gone for the day Blake. I'll check back tomorrow to find your court ruling saying police do have a duty to protect. Happy hunting!
Lmao gunssavelives.net
Cool website! Thanks for the link.
Still waiting for a court ruling stating police have a duty to protect.
Pistol Pete! Why'd you drop the kingsfanwithoutname handle?
Pusher! Happy hump day!
I'm not changing my mind based on anything a biased gun nut that likes websites like that says about this.
Kennedy v Ridgefield might be a court case you're looking for though.
But cons utional or legal duties are different than local procedural duties.
we both know "to serve and protect" is a pretty common phrase.
Since when are SCOTUS rulings those of biased gun nuts?
Kennedy vs Ridgefield has nothing to do with what we are discussing and had you actually read the case you'd understand that. How did you find Kennedy vs Ridgefield relevant to the discussion?
So is "till death do us part", how'd that work for you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
