WHY YOU NEED A GUN: Subway Stabbing Victim Can’t Sue NYPD For Failing To Help

[Meezer]

This is why you need a gun:

A man who was brutally stabbed by Brooklyn subway slasher Maksim Gelman two years ago had his negligence case against the city dismissed in court yesterday, despite the fact that two transit officers had locked themselves in a motorman’s car only a few feet from him at the time of the attack.
Gelman stabbed Joseph Lozito in the face, neck, hands and head on an uptown 3 train in February 2011, after fatally stabbing four people and injuring three others in a 28-hour period. Lozito, a father of two and an avid martial arts fan, was able to tackle Gelman and hold him down, and Gelman was eventually arrested by the transit officers. Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had locked themselves in the conductor’s car and failed to come to his aid in time.
The city, meanwhile, claimed that the NYPD had no “special duty” to intervene at the time, and that they were in the motorman’s car because they believed Gelman had a gun.

​

They want you to be unable to protect yourself, they should be insurers against any harm they don’t prevent. It’s only fair.

Subway Stabbing Victim Can't Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him: Gothamist

 

[CathyInBlue]

Castle Rock v Gonzalez, beeotches!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Think Zimmerman had a hard time with defending himself with a firearm? Think about shooting someone on a subway in NYC. He might not have seen the light of day ever again.

 

[williamsburg]

Sadly the SCOTUS has ruled that LEO's have no obligation to aid in the defense of others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

To follow up on what CathyInBlue said.

 

[printcraft]

Sadly the SCOTUS has ruled that LEO's have no obligation to aid in the defense of others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

To follow up on what CathyInBlue said.

This, just like the guy in the OP, try suing one for failing to protect you. Tough ****.
They have NO duty to protect you.
Take care of yourself.
They will come by afterward and write the report for you.

 

[Mark 1911]

This, just like the guy in the OP, try suing one for failing to protect you. Tough ****.
They have NO duty to protect you.
Take care of yourself.
They will come by afterward and write the report for you.

Of course, in NYC they would also arrest you after they wrote the report for:
1. Carrying a handgun in the city of NYC
2. Magazine greater than 7 rounds, after all, how many bullets do you need to kill a dee-ya
3. Murder - After all, he's dead and you're still alive
4. That 20 oz Coke your drinking
5. Screaming for help - noise ordinance violation

 

[dusterboy49]

New York City is just as bad as Chicago in my opinion.
Why anyone would want to live there is beyond me.

 

[japartridge]

This type of crap sickens me... They tell you that you don't need a gun, that the police are there to protect you. Then when you need protection, they say, we have no duty to protect you... That is some pure, unadulterated BULL****! The even more sickening part of it is that the rest of the populace are not outraged and demanding their rights back!

 

[BuckCreek]

Makes me glad I live in a state that recognizes my right to defend myself and my right to keep and bear arms. There's no way I would live in New York or Chicago.

 

[MadMan66]

My liberal, hipster, sister lives in Brooklyn. I visited her once, and it was a cool experience and all, but I have absolutely no desire to return there.

 

[tatertot]

I try to explain Castlerock v. Gonzalez to my liberal family because they believe leo's are superheroes and will fly into their homes and save them if a bad guy comes in. They (in typical liberal fashion) ignore facts, and I typically get a "Nuh uh" response. Its sad really.

 

[Sfrandolph]

In the cases of NYC and Chicago and other places that have "laws" preventing you from carrying your own protection, this is nothing but politicized population control. The Govt wants you to die. You won't be on welfare, you won't collect social security, etc. The Govt really does not want you around.

As to the question of LEO's providing protection, I have seen a number of departments across the country that their motto is "To Serve and Protect". Seems like that motto is meaningless in reality.

 

[brotherbill3]

Sadly the SCOTUS has ruled that LEO's have no obligation to aid in the defense of others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

To follow up on what CathyInBlue said.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was incorrect. ... would you like a police presence 24/7 on every street corner in America? ... then having to fork our the liability law suit pentalties as taxes for when they prove 'incapable' of stopping some tragedy, becuase, gee 2 happen in the same vicinity at once or for any other number of circumstances. it is not realistic.

The Founding fathers have several notable quotes ... the 2 that come to mind are: (paraphrased from memory for speed):
1) Those that sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither

(I would add that liberty includes a large deal of personal responsibilty and sadly the .gov in NY has limited your ability for that ...)

2) A goverment big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything from you. ...

 

[jbombelli]

I try to explain Castlerock v. Gonzalez to my liberal family because they believe leo's are superheroes and will fly into their homes and save them if a bad guy comes in. They (in typical liberal fashion) ignore facts, and I typically get a "Nuh uh" response. Its sad really.

Wait until gun registration comes up, and you get to explain Haynes V. United States. In short: Convicted felons cannot be punished for failing/refusing to register their guns, as registering them would be a 5th Amendment violation of their right against self incrimination.

 

[vitamink]

The story is slightly misleading. What actually happened from Lozito's initial story is someone told him that they were going to kill him. He paused and thought that he must be in a movie scene or something. Immediately the guy lunged for him and he thought that he was fortunate that he saw 2 cops 1 car away. The fight immediately went to the ground and when it did an officer was on top of them and handcuffing the suspect. He initially praised the officer for his speed. The officer then replied to Lozito that he hesitated as he thought he had a gun at first. That statement alone upset him and was what the basis of his lawsuit. He then went to talk to a lawyer and his story suddenly became more detailed. He later said that the officers walked onto the subway and he heard noise from the radio. He took this to mean that they were looking for something or someone. He then said that they must have been looking for Gelman. He stated that Gelman went up to the locked conductors door where the officers were and knocked on the glass stating let me in. He felt at that time they should have immediately recognized Gelman, and handcuffed him. So in summation the basis of his suit was and officer said he hesitated and that they didn't recognize the guy when they should have. Had any of those things not occurred he wouldn't have a cut on his head. The reason for courts decision is by his definition if the police are around and someone gets hurt it is the police's fault regardless. IE if you go to the State Fair, talk **** to someone, and that guy punches you in the mouth...that man should go to jail and you deserve a million dollars because the police didn't get to you quick enough to stop the attack.

Lozito wanted money and it isn't the first time he's sued New York hoping for a big pay out...maybe his lastest lawsuit against NY regarding allowing UFC to have fights there will grant him some "unspecified monetary compensation"

 

[bingley]

Gun isn't always the most advantageous tool, especially in a crowded subway car. The guy isn't attacking you from the other end of the car. He's probably right next to you. You may have no room to create distance. You need to get good at hand-to-hand or knife fighting.

One gun response is to deflect his lunge with the weak hand, daw with the strong hand, shoot as you back up. You need to worry about stray shots, overpenetration, and the inability to back up & create distance. I don't know, but I'd be really worried about lawsuits. Some people may even sue you for hurting their ears by letting off rounds in an enclosed space.

I've seen people assaulted when the car is so crowded there is no space to move. You're shoulder to shoulder with everybody. (Basically one guy got really frustrated after missing trains, being shoved and pushed as everyone desperately tried to get on the one train that would take them home on time. He just lost his temper and took a swing at the guy next to him. It wasn't a mugging or anything like that. I guess this gets into the "should I shoot to defend myself against a punch" debate.) Again, hand-to-hand fighting would be more useful than firearms.

Why don't you just draw and shoot him first? Usually you don't get a warning. This crazy guy at least gave the victim a warning, and that's extremely rare. You may not realize something is wrong until his attack has been launched.

Finally, I've seen gang tactics in NYC that would neutralize the advantage of an individual having a gun. In this case you need really good awareness to avoid falling into the trap.

So what am I saying? Guns are useless? No. Each situation offers its unique defensive challenges, and the kind of "home defense" or "parking lot" scenarios that we think about in Indiana aren't necessarily translatable to "crowded subway" scenarios. We need a whole continuum of defensive training, and firearm is only a part of that. It's not the whole thing.