Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Subway Stabbing Victim Can't Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him(feet away, no duty to protect0
gothamist.com ^ | 26 July, 2013 | Rebecca Fishbein

Posted on 08/03/2013 6:54:14 AM PDT by marktwain

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. Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had locked themselves in the conductor's car and failed to come to his aid in time.

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at gothamist.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; biggestgangintown; codeofsilence; corruption; cowardcops; cultureofcorruption; donutwatch; govtabuse; guncontrol; gunfreezone; ny; police; policeunion; protect; secondamendment; standyourground; syg; toprotectandserve; youreonyourown
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
To: marktwain
Ever since Carter let Castro empty Cuba's prisons and mental hospitals for the Mariel Boat Lift, the US has become a dumping ground for all the crazies.

Yes, Gelman's from the the Ukraine, but local to me, there was a Russian that was a nuisance. Mental, alcoholic, and a two-fisted smoker, he'd be alternating cigarettes while drunkenly meandering his way across one of the main drags.

BTB, didn't Al Sharpton sue NYC (NYPD) for failing to protect him during one of his rabble-rousing/community-organizing marches? A resident of the targeted neighborhood stabbed Sharpton.

I remember a photo of an greasy, but alert Sharpton being loaded into an ambulance with a [forgetten] caption of how much he took the city for.

I was perplexed as to why he was able to do that.

41 posted on 08/03/2013 7:38:53 AM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry381

No duty to protect? Then what are we paying them for?


42 posted on 08/03/2013 7:39:47 AM PDT by k4gypsyrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: k4gypsyrose; All

“No duty to protect? Then what are we paying them for?”

Not duty to protect *you*. They have a duty to protect “society at large”, which translated means “follow orders and protect the government”.

Nowhere have I seen a court mention that they have a duty to protect the Constitution, which they take an oath to do.


43 posted on 08/03/2013 7:47:27 AM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: k4gypsyrose
to eat doughnuts and shoot dogs...
44 posted on 08/03/2013 7:54:22 AM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Apparently the court relied upon the old Common Law rule that one has no duty to rescue someone in a dangerous situation. There is a case where some one stood at the side of a swimming pool and watched a child drown. The parents sued the man standing by the side of the pool; the court held "NO Duty."

This is why I laugh at those supposed "rugged individualists" on this site. The rationale for these cases rises from the individualism forming one of the premises of the Common Law.

The Civil Law imposes a duty to help one in peril or injured.

I happen to personally believe that an armed policeman should be required to come to the aid of a victim of a crime where possible

45 posted on 08/03/2013 7:57:49 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

Just talking about national rate.

That some cities are going up but the national rate remains low, just means that other areas are even safer.


46 posted on 08/03/2013 8:02:28 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS; All

“This is why I laugh at those supposed “rugged individualists” on this site. The rationale for these cases rises from the individualism forming one of the premises of the Common Law.”

I think it is much simpler. If the court ruled that the police had a duty to protect individuals, they could be sued for every crime that occurs. It would rapidly bankrupt the State.

I do not know of any government anywhere that allows police to be sued because an individual was the victim of a crime, unless the police had a “special duty” such as being assigned to guard someone, and then egregiously failed in that “special duty”.


47 posted on 08/03/2013 8:05:16 AM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; All

“...The city, meanwhile, claimed that the NYPD had no “special duty” to intervene at the time,...”

Let that sink in folks. It doesn’t matter to them if you’re attacked by some feral animal and die.

THE POLICE - you know, those “To Serve And Protect” heroes - have “No Special Duty To Intervene” - their words.

Demand your right to carry, and don’t stop pushing until they acquiesce. If the legislators don’t listen, remove them at every election cycle.

Law-abiding Gun owners put up with more infringement on our basic CIVIL, HUMAN, and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS than ANY other group in this country.

How these people view your right to defend yourself is the litmus test for how they view ALL of your rights.

New York’s Sullivan Law must go.

If the libtards go after Stand Your Ground in other states, we need to go after the Sullivan Law in NYC, and other no-issue states, like New Jersey.


48 posted on 08/03/2013 8:39:39 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“...Not duty to protect *you*. They have a duty to protect “society at large”, which translated means “follow orders and protect the government”....”

But...the rationale we always hear the left whining about is that “you don’t need to carry a gun; that’s what the POLICE are for...”

Throw their own words back in their faces.

Their job is to draw the chalk line around your corpse and then fill out the necessary paperwork in triplicate.

The only person responsible for your safety is you. You are the First Responder.

I submit that if ANY one of those four people that this feral piece of sh*t “Maksim Gelman” murdered had had a gun, there wouldn’t be four dead and one stabbed. He’d be bleeding out on the subway floor and saving NY taxpayers a ton of money.

Bernard Goetz had it right back in the day.


49 posted on 08/03/2013 8:46:20 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

To Protect and Serve ... myself!


50 posted on 08/03/2013 8:47:07 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
And if Joseph Lozito had used a firearm instead, the coward cops would have been out of that motorman's car in a heartbeat to arrest him.

They would have continued to cower in their safe pace.

51 posted on 08/03/2013 9:08:36 AM PDT by Half Vast Conspiracy (People in America are still tried in the courts rather than by left-wing protesters or by the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Yeah, they thought he had a gun and that they were in danger themselves...but somehow didn’t see that as being a potential danger to this other guy? Riiigggghhhttt... Liberal / coward logic from two wanna-be men hiding.


52 posted on 08/03/2013 9:15:28 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

“To Protect and Serve” needs to be changed to “Just Pay The Fine And You’ll Be Good To Go”.


53 posted on 08/03/2013 9:17:12 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Subway Stabbing Victim Can't Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him(feet away, no duty to protect0

Courts have said this over and over again.

The fact is that since no police authority is obligated to protect you, they can have no legitimate authority to prevent you from protecting yourself by instituting 'gun control'.

The Founders expounded on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, but they were fully aware that it came with the DUTY to do so.

The majority of people today, however, think 'rights' are only a one-way street.

54 posted on 08/03/2013 9:24:52 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
“To Protect and Serve” needs to be changed to “Just Pay The Fine And You’ll Be Good To Go”.

LOL! We've been calling it 'to Collect and Observe'

55 posted on 08/03/2013 9:26:02 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I do not know about the Civil Law and a governmental officers duty to protect or help an injured person. There does not necessarily have to be a response in damages for breach of any duty to protect-loss of ones job could be enough punishment.


56 posted on 08/03/2013 9:28:45 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda
Not if psychotic lesbian vampire Christine Quinn becomes next Mayor which most likely will happen now that Anthony Weiner has all but “shrank”.


57 posted on 08/03/2013 9:29:42 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NFHale

“Demand your right to carry, and don’t stop pushing until they acquiesce. “

Failure right there. They will just use deadly force AGAINST you if you try to carry but otherwise IGNORE YOU. The key is that they WILL use deadly force whenever they feel like it but FORBID your availing yourself of it.

The only thing that will stop this mode is if you INFORM them that you will carry as per your rights and respond with what ever force is necessary if anyone decides they are going to resent it.


58 posted on 08/03/2013 9:35:02 AM PDT by TalBlack (Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Thanks. Bookmarked.


59 posted on 08/03/2013 9:47:30 AM PDT by Oatka (This is America. Assimilate or evaporate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

“...The only thing that will stop this mode is if you INFORM them that you will carry as per your rights and respond with what ever force is necessary if anyone decides they are going to resent it...”

I hear you. But how many people are willing to take it to that logical and inevitable conclusion?

I’m merely saying to work within the system - while it is workable (and I know that point is debatable - most gunnies I know are already quoting the Claire Wolf “when is it time” scenario and have determined that it’s WELL PAST time).

But Carry is ALWAYS an individual option, left up to the person to decide for themselves. You take the risks you’re willing to take, to negate the potential threat to your life.

Problem is, WE - the people who make the system work - are caught between the thugs without badges and the thugs WITH badges enforcing blatantly unconstitutional - and therefore ILLEGAL - law at the behest of criminal politicians and judges who disregard the law of the land.

Carrying is civil disobedience in some states. Folks must decide if the risk is worth it - “Do I risk being murdered by the Thug without a Badge if I DON’T carry, or do I risk being murdered by a thug WITH a badge if I do?”

That’s a sick, psychotic choice being forced upon Citizens, by sick, psychotic people.

And folks just go along with it every day.


60 posted on 08/03/2013 9:50:15 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson