Saturday, July 27, 2013

Once Again, The Police Do Not Have A Duty To Protect You

Next time the antis claim you don't need a gun because the "police wil protect you", there are two new examples you can point to that refute that time-worn and completely untrue claim.

Example 1: The New York Post: Zero for hero: Judge snubs man hurt stopping 'Butcher of Brighton Beach'

He’s a bona-fide hero who stopped the so-called “Butcher of Brighton Beach” at the end of a 28-hour city killing spree — but a Manhattan judge yesterday said a father of two is entitled to zero from the city for his injuries in the harrowing 2011 subway encounter.

Joseph Lozito sued the NYPD in January 2012, claiming police officers did nothing to help him as he confronted violent madman Maksim Gelman on a packed No. 3 train.

But Judge Margaret Chan tossed the case yesterday, saying that while she lauded Lozito’s bravery, cops did not have a specific charge of saving him from Gelman.

Because “no direct promises of protection were made to Mr. Lozito,” the police had “no special duty” to protect him. The psycho killer was sentenced to 200 years to life in prison for carving up Lozito with a knife and killing four other people in a drug-fueled spree. Chan added, “The dismissal of this lawsuit does not lessen Mr. Lozito’s bravery or the pain of his injuries. It merely provides a resolution to this litigation.” Lozito, 42, a martial-arts enthusiast, claimed cops hid in the motorman’s cab while he disarmed Gelman as the madman slashed at his face, hands, neck and head.

Yes, police even at the scene of a crime in progress can stand off and do nothing and not be held liable as they have no duty to protect the average citizen. Note that this was in New York city, where the average citizen is by law disarmed and not permitted to protect themselves except with a politician's bromide that they have no reason to have a weapon to protect themselves as the police will protect them.

Example 2: The Detroit Free Press: Did prison error involving Dollar Store suspect cost 2 young lives?

Before Lavere Bryant was accused in the killings of two Dearborn dollar store workers, police should have already been looking for the convicted sex offender.

But Bryant, who never self-reported after being released from prison two years ago after serving time for an assault, continued to roam free because prison officials made an error — they failed to change information on the state’s sex offender registry that would have let law enforcement know he was no longer incarcerated.

Now, the Free Press has learned, the Michigan Department of Corrections is conducting an internal investigation to determine how the mistake happened.

“Obviously there was a failure there,” said John Cordell, a spokesman for the Corrections Department.

Well, they lost track of a convicted rapist who had also commited assault prior to his murder of two store employees (and potentially sexual assault of the female employee, whose body was found away from the scene in the woods). After all mistakes happen, and neither the police nor the department of corrections have a duty to protect the average citizen from criminals.

Two more sad examples that again give lie to the claim that the police and justice system have a legal duty to protect the average citizen. They do not.


Old NFO said...

No real surprises here Aaron, but it is interesting that the suit made it as far as it did in NY...

Home on the Range said...

Thanks for posting this Aaron, even if too many people remain closed to the truth. There is no guaranteed issue of protection against evil but for that you do yourself.

Aaron said...

Yes, its no surprise, but many knowingly persist in repeating the tried old canard that "You don't need to defend yourself, the police will protect you" to advance their aims.

Now, the police are pretty good at catching criminals after they have committed a crime, but their record on interdicting crimes against persons while in progress is not nearly as good. Considering it is neither realistically possible nor legally required that they do so, the claim that they will assuredly protect you should have been hung up by the antis long ago. Yet, the anti-self-defense crowd, many of whom have armed bodyguards, persist in making this ridiculous and provably false statement time and time again.

Expatriate Owl said...

And another one from Brooklyn: