August 01, 2013
Amazing Serial Killer Survival Story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZKVSNjlSp0
WeAreChange recently got the opportunity to meet and Interview Joe Lozito, the selfless hero who put his life on the line to stop a serial killer. The story is only magnified when Joe finds out, that while being stabbed by the serial killer, the NYPD was standing by watching everything unfold from the safety of the conductors door. Currently in a legal suit, the NYPD and City of NY is arguing that the NYPD has NO duty to protect its own citizens.
If you want to learn more about Joe and be updated about his court case follow him on https://twitter.com/joe_lozito
Joe is petitioning Judge Margaret A. Chan to get his day in court against the NYPD. Please sign and share! https://www.change.org/petitions/hono...
Good luck Joe.
ReplyDeleteSurprising to hear New Yorkers speak of police in terms of safety. Wiseacre-type New Yorkers, I thought, knew different.
ReplyDeleteThe police do have no duty to protect. It's disinfo to believe otherwise.
We're on our own.
Best of luck to a citizen hero.
ReplyDeleteAmazing. Bloomberg sets up an office for the NYPD in Tel Aviv to train them in policing and the boys act like scared IDF types while the people protect themselves.
No, not amazing. Just typical.
Good luck Joe.
I found a good review of the case law on this subject here: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004
ReplyDelete"Although police generally have no constitutional duty to protect private persons from third parties, there may be such a duty if a special relationship exists or if the state increased or created the danger to the harmed person. Federal courts do not always apply these exceptions in a consistent manner. Agencies should evaluate their own circuit's application of the law to specific facts before deciding when a duty to protect may arise in their jurisdiction. Further, local counsel should be consulted to assess whether state tort law allows a failure to protect lawsuit based on a negligence theory."
The policy of not recognizing a duty is reasonable when we consider the ramifications if it were otherwise: there would be a potential lawsuit every time a person was harmed by a violent act. --"The police were negligent in their duty to protect me!"
Thus the law generally states that there is no duty, but carves out narrow exceptions: a special relationship was created, or the police created the danger. (These exceptions spring up under other conditions in tort law.)
In this particular instance, we can see the need for another exception:
-- A policeman who is cognizant of a (human) person in immediate danger, and who has the present ability to prevent (or ameliorate) this danger, should have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent (or ameliorate) such danger.