Short version of the crime:
Man is on train sitting next to driver's door... 2 Cops enter the engineer's (driver's) booth. Crazy man wanted for 4 murders (from the day before) begins to stab sitting man while cops watch from safety in Engineers Booth. Man fights back and disarms assailant. Cops run out to take over and apprehended disarmed would be killer. Crazy man is tried and sentenced to 200 years.
Stabbed man sues NYPD because they literally stood and watched him being stabbed in the head near fatally from from safety a few feet away, over and over again. The NYPD's official legal response; Police officers are not obligated to protect citizens.
My take:
Those cops should be fired on the spot for the cowards they are. They should be personally sued, as well as the NYPD for not properly screening them out. I understand a 1/2 second of hesitance from shock. I understand a 1/2 seconds hesitance to think of the best way to handle the situation. I even understand logistical hesitance to fire a gun in a crowded subway car... But for TWO COPS to hesitate (apprehending ONE MAN) long enough for this whole assault to take place is a sign of pure cowardice on the part of BOTH officers. This should be an open and shut case in my book... Pay the man, end of discussion. Thank God this man lived though this.
Controversy and conspiracy thumpers:
Now here comes Alex Jones and his legion of idiots posing as journalists with no credentials, no journalistic integrity nor any journalistic discipline, charging in with their battle cry... "They want to disarm us so that the police protect us but then they put the police under no obligation to protect us". Sounds pretty compelling doesn't it? I know it raised my eyebrow. I know 1st hand that the NYPD is one hell of a corrupt beast, been the victim of it many times and witnessed it countless more times. But even THIS seemed a bit too far fetched to be real... Even for the NYPD.
Getting to the bottom of things:
As I started researching this rule/law it became painfully apparent that almost every police department in the nation has this same policy. I thought to myself... WTF is going on here. Is this Bizarro World or a bad Twighlight Zone episode? Link after link on Google backing up this idea that the police do not have to protect us citizens? Mind you all generated from one or two story sources. The propaganda campaign of the Conspiracy Machine goes above and beyond to bury facts and makes it incredibly hard to get to the truth about anything. They create/generate so many links and generate so many clicks on those links that they bump up their hogwash in the Google search results. Ultimately the real answers get pushed back further and further to a page so far back that only the most persistent people like myself ever find them.
Rest assured, I found it. Now I know the info at this may seem like a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo to some, so you can read it if you want to or you can just read my condensed simple explanation below the link... Your choice.
Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog
The Cops ARE obligated to protect you. It is just legal maneuvering to stop law suits, particularly of the frivolous kind. Unfortunately this poor man is being penalized for all the predatory law suits filed each year by unscrupulous lawyers. He has a legitimate case that is being crushed by rules written to stem fraudulent litigation. The rule states that the Officers do not protect CITIZENS but rather they have to protect the Public At Large (of which citizens are a part of). In other words... Their duty is not to any one PARTICULAR citizen. Example... Cop has 2 bullets left... 3 bad guys with 3 knives to 3 hostages necks. He shoots and kills 2 bad guys ultimately saving 2 hostages and the 3rd hostage is killed. The dead hostages family can now sue for not being saved. After all why didn't the cop hostages to save over their loved one? See where I am going with this? The rule came after people were killed when the Police knew of threats, but were still not able to stop the murders. The police departments were being sued for not protecting INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS... So they shifted their oath of protection to the over all public rather than anyone in particular.
There is not controversy here... Just a bad set of circumstances for a man who found himself at the sight of a tragedy... And victimized twice in my personal opinion.
Cybergodd
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment