Sunday, January 27, 2013

So much for police protection in New York City!

Those who continue to blindly insist that only police should be trusted with guns, and we should rely on cops rather than guns to protect us against bad guys, might want to consider this case.

[New York] city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island dad stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman — a courtroom maneuver the subway hero calls “disgraceful.”

. . .

Police officers Terrance Howell and Tamara Taylor were part of a massive NYPD manhunt. They were in the operator’s cab, watching the tracks between Penn Station and 42nd Street for any sign of the fugitive. Lozito was seated next to the cab.

In the official NYPD account and Howell’s own affidavit, Howell heroically tackled and subdued the killer. But Lozito tells a different story.

. . .

Lozito says a grand-jury member later told him Howell admitted on the stand that he hid during the attack because he thought Gelman had a gun.

There's more at the link.  It's very important reading for anyone concerned about their safety and security, and that of their loved ones.

If Mr. Lozito had been armed, he'd have been far better prepared to defend himself;  but New York City makes it extraordinarily difficult to get a permit to even own a handgun, let alone carry one.  As a result, he had only his bare hands with which to defend himself against a madman with a knife, and was stabbed seven times in sixty seconds in the resulting struggle.  According to credible reports, the two police officers sat there and watched, but did nothing until the fight was over and Lozito had already subdued Gelman.

The New York City Police Department's motto is 'Faithful Unto Death'.  After reading this report, one may perhaps ask - whose death?  The citizen(s) its officers are supposed to protect and serve?



lotta joy said...

I am shocked that a blog as well and intelligently written as yours has so few readers. Blows my mind.

Anonymous said...

OK, I can understand the ruling that the police do not have a duty to protect an individual when the police are not at the scene of an active crime (i.e. are called in and arrive late). But not to have a duty to assist someone struggling with an assailant three feet from the officers?!? Then why have them at all?


JD(not the one with the picture) said...

Faithful to their pensions unto death.

Will said...


We have them because they are revenue agents, for the most part. That, and protection for TPTB.
Think I'm kidding? Where do all the cops go when things go bad, like Rodney King/LA bad? To protect .gov locations and the high mucky-mucks that infest them. The general citizenry? Pphhhttt... rots of ruck!