NYC, We Have No Duty To Protect You

[Kirk Freeman]

23 year old man kills four and then runs into New York City subway. While cops hesitate to stop killer, a subway passenger, 42 year old male martial artist, stops knife-wielding spree killer and suffers wounds in the course of the fight.

A passenger sues city to recover for his knife wounds. New York City responds with "we have no duty to protect you."

The government denies you the right to protect yourself but leaves you high and dry when you do play by their rules. Let's hope the ability/inability for the common New Yorker to defend himself changes soon.

Of Arms and the Law: Don't worry, the city will protect you

 

[actaeon277]

Police Protection-Provide Police Protection

Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bunnykid68]

You're right Kirk, they say they have no duty to protect you all the while telling you, you have no right to protect yourself either

 

[willytlucas]

I guess "To Serve And Protect" apparently only relates to themselves.

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

And you're surprised....why ????

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No surprise, sir, just giving INGO a heads up.

It's not like I am known for beating things into the ground . . . hey, have I told you guys about the 870 at Shootrite?

 

[tj_v89]

This isnt surprising at all....IMO, thats why you are seeing local sheriffs depts taking public stances on citizens arming themselves....I have 2 brothers that are police officers, and they would both agree with the stance of citizens arming themselves....the Police is a reactionary force usually

 

[IndyDave1776]

Standard leftist tripe. When arguing for gun/knife/ice pick/pointy scissors control, you don't need weapons because the police are there to protect you. When you need the police to protect you, what are you talking about? The police don't have a duty to protect you.

 

[Alamo]

I once counted at least 11 SCOTUS decisions that affirmed in various ways that the police have no duty to protect in individual. There must be a "special relationship" for the police to have a duty to protect in individual. Restraining/protective orders do not establish such a relationship (the latest decision I know about, the Castle Rock one, was about this). However, a person in police custody, such as a jail prisoner, does have the special relationship status that requires the police to protect him.

If the US DOJ were really on task, they would investigate and take to court jurisdictions like Chicago and NYC for depriving people of the right to defend themselves.