Skip to comments.Subway Stabbing Victim Can't Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him(feet away, no duty to protect0
Posted on 08/03/2013 6:54:14 AM PDT by marktwain
click here to read article
They would have continued to cower in their safe pace.
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.
“To Protect and Serve” needs to be changed to “Just Pay The Fine And You’ll Be Good To Go”.
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.
LOL! We've been calling it 'to Collect and Observe'
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.
“Demand your right to carry, and dont 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.
“...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.
“I hear you. But how many people are willing to take it to that logical and inevitable conclusion?”
Exactly. This is a thing for which there is a time and a place.
1. Issue Citations and Tickets to bring in revenue.
2. Arrest people and impound vehicles at arbitrary 'traffic stops' to levy fines and perhaps sell the vehicle to bring in even more revenue.
3. Shoot pet dogs. Note: They must, however, ignore any packs of feral dogs running about because they might get attacked and bitten.
4. Ventilate homeowners with sixty hits out of ninety shots fired because he dared to stand at the end of the hallway and "looked threatening" at 2:38 in the morning when a large group of totally black-clothed and bulletproof-vest wearing masked men blasted their way inside the house.
I could go on...
You forgot Rosie O’Porker, protected 24/7 by her own private security teams.
No, they just roll their eyes and inform you that they are not going to allow any Constitutional arguments, merely establish guilt in the matter before them.
So the well paid police who see a person they suspect might have a gun lock themselves out of any confrontation leaving just ordinary no can carry guns people at the mercy of a deranged killer. Do I get this right? In this day and time I believe most cops of any sort go for the badge as a ticket to an early and well paid retirement. They can then take jobs that other needing persons might be able to get.
You should never go in those sandwich places unarmed.
Perhaps he didn’t know they had locked themselves away at first. All he knew was that they “showed up” in the nick of time as he was still wrestling with the guy on the floor. Then later finds out “What!? You were watching us the entire time!!???”
“No duty to protect” is how it works in Colorado as well. If this wasn’t the case, then EVERY action taken by every police officer in the state would wind up in court each and every time SOMEONE was displeased with the result.
I agree with that. I also agree that each and every one of us has an unalienable duty to protect ourselves with every means possible and whenever necessary in whatever circumstance. Because for one thing, no one else has such a duty.
And I’d presume his case would get tossed if he sues the city and State for deprivation of Rights (2nd) that would have allowed him to defend himself.
What, aside from raking in the $$, and TRYING to solve a crime after its commission, do the police do? When did the moto ‘the serve and protect’ get whittled down to ‘law enforcement officer’ (which seems to be moot in this case as well since they didn’t ENFORCE the NO GUN Laws on the books...they was ‘scared’).
Unfortunately your 1st statement nullifies the 2nd; if you have a ‘permit’ it’s not a RIGHT.
We should all be free to carry (per the 2nd), backed up by the reciprocity of the Constitutional carry States (AK, AZ, etc.); but I’d keep a copy of all the ‘no duty’ lawsuits in m pocket Constitution JUST in case.
Oh, almost forgot: MUST arrest any money they find since it is probably ‘drug’ money.
Thank you for that. I have been making that exact statement for more years than I care to think about, and believe that the more people understand that the better off we all are.
But they needed to go home safely to their families.
Yep. The police have no duty to protect you, even if they are standing right there.
SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no legal obligation to protect you.
And the left, wickedly, works at chipping away at our Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Anyone who claims the police’s job is to “serve and protect” is either ignorant of these facts, or a liar.
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.