I'm certain that it's against the law to stab someone in New York. The NYPD watched a man repeatedly stab another in the face, head, arms, hands and everywhere he could reach with a kitchen knife, and the NYPD officers stood and watched it happen. If it is their job to enforce the law then either trying to kill someone is legal or it isn't their job to enforce the law.
They watched someone fight off a serial killer, then took credit for capturing him when they basically did nothing.
The guy who almost died fighting off a serial killer sued the NYPD for their lack of action. The case was dismissed because "A police officer has no obligation to protect the people" It isn't their job to enforce the law.
Personally, I've always found Warren v. DC to be quite appalling. One thing to note though, is that you can't always trust primary sources implicitly. You need context before making judgments. IF the story is true though, people say that the job of the police is to enforce the law, not to protect the people. I might argue though that the purpose of the law is to protect people. But at this point, it boils down to interpretation.
One of the police officers from the story in the OP did say that he didn't come out because he believed the killer had a gun. That testimony suggests they were aware what was going on and didn't act.
I understand what you are saying though. I'm just too jaded to be objective in the matter
Last edited by Theodon; 2013-02-08 at 11:37 AM.
Are you kidding me? No you would not be charged as an accessory. You are required to do nothing in case you see a murder.
SOME states have laws that may require you to report a murder, but you will be highly unlikely to get prosecuted to failing to do so.
Cops also don't have an obligation to protect citizens or prevent crimes, they are only obligated to prosecute / investigate crimes (and this was a federal court decision, if I am not mistaken, so it applies nation-wide).
Enforcement of the law is catching the criminal and jailing him too.It isn't their job to enforce the law.
Last edited by Ashnazg; 2013-02-08 at 04:36 PM.
I would say one case doesn't make it the general rule of thumb. There's all kinds of videos out there of officers putting their life on the line as the crime is being committed.
We are shoveled the bs that cops would risk their lives to save a person, and that they are heroes. Cops aren't even close to the top injury rate for any job, and even at their current numbers, are mostly because they are given the mandate to drive themselves to the ER for any possible injury.
If you think that the police will protect you, you're probably right, if they're there and theres no immediate threat to them. If you think the police can protect you, you're very wrong, the good ones can't be everywhere at once, and even they'll wait for backup (typically, 6 officers per perpetrator involved).
Get a gun, and train yourself to protect yourself, and don't live in a big city. Their sole purpose is to extract wealth from productive individuals and siphon it to corrupt institutions.
I'm pretty sure that was a joke about how NYC is at times very much like a completely separate country that does things it's own way. Going from NY to anywhere else can be a very jarring experience, and I think anyone that has traveled the US knows that some states can be radically different from those next to them. Going from anywhere in NY to NYC is much the same experience, NYC is just different. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's a bad thing.
NYPD is the best police force in the world.
Well, that's what Lozito says someone sitting on a grand jury told him after the fact. I can't find a published record of that or other testimony so we can determine if that's accurate or not. We'd need the officers' (and witnesses') statements to construct an adequate picture which reflects their actions or at least their intent.
Understood, and I appreciate your honesty. All I'm saying is that it's important to know what's actually on the books versus what's being claimed, and right now we don't have the necessary information to distinguish between the two.
What I find especially problematic here is that the truther angle presented in the video is designed to cater to people's prejudices against police or the government. The statement they make on their website is:
Currently in a legal suit, the NYPD and City of NY is arguing that the NYPD has NO duty to protect its own citizens.
The context that's omitted here, from the one non-conspiracy article I can find in the New York Post, involves liability:
The city routinely settles such litigation but is playing hardball with Lozito, insisting his demand for unspecified money damages be tossed because the police had no “special duty” to protect him or any individual on the train that day.
“Under well-established law, the police are not liable for such incidents,” said city lawyer David Santoro. “That doesn't detract from the Police Department's public safety mission -- or the fact that New York is the safest big city in America."
Experts say it’s a long-standing legal precedent requiring police to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual’s rights.
As this video is making the rounds on blogs and forums, people are eagerly directing anger at the officers, or the NYPD, or the city government (or Second Amendment restrictions) -- but what's getting lost in all the noise is the difference between the mission of the police department and tort law.
My intent is not to blindly defend the cops or the city; it's entirely possible that they fucked up here, and again, if that's the case then that certainly needs to be addressed. The details we need here to reach any reasonable conclusions, however, are going to require some evidence-based, objective reporting though, and I'm hardly inclined to accept claims from truther groups and Infowars which intentionally try to distort the issue.
---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 01:03 PM ----------
They may be recorded but I can find no transcripts available online so we can vet their content, only minimal details of Lozito's suit having been filed.
Again, this is Lozito's account. If you can find a transcript of that testimony for us to examine, by all means post it.