One of the very many reasons some people like to have a gun to protect themselves. To tell them they can't and provide nobody else who will be accountable to do so is basically telling them they're just out of luck.

And somehow this guy survived; he knew martial arts I guess. He is a fuckin hero for it because the police hid in cars while this guy went on a rampage. We should be commending the police for doing their jobs; instead, this guy gets his face cut to bits and the police - as usual - get off easy because they apparently aren't in the business of protecting their citizens.

is this seriously news to you? The police are there to clean up the mess after you've been mugged, Rob, jumped on the street, shot, raped dot dot dot the police have never been obligated to protect you, that's why people that love freedom want to have the right to carry a gun to protect them selves. As I've suggested before, and do not takethis as an insult, but when you are a little older, a little wiser, a little more experience with the world around you, you will understand why people have the beliefs they haveabout such things as gun ownership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Krellin, I'm not a Democrat. I fully support gun ownership.

They take an oath to serve and protect, yet they don't have an obligation to fulfill that oath (you know, the protect part)?

That'd be the irony, Draug. That's about all there is to it.

The real purpose of the police is not to "serve and protect" the public but to maintain order and keep the peasants in line.

Don't forget forcing people to take their Prozium!

Of course this doesn't even get into what the Tetragrammaton do to citizens.

Oh Tolstoy, we could almost be friends. Almost :(

"People that love freedom want to have the right to carry a gun."

It sure appears that SOMEBODY drank the KOOL ADE.

Pathetic american simpleton.

This is just so that police departments can't be sued if they fail to stop crimes. The sheer volume of cases, even against an ideally run department, would be crippling. Where's all the usual lawyer hate? This is a major obstacle for trial lawyers making mints.

Just think about it for a second. Say you live in a small town with only one police car. Your house is being broken into and you call the police. Unfortunately, that same night at the same time there's another burglary across town that turns into a hostage situation and an exchange of gunfire. If the police are liable for failing to protect people then you can sue the department since they failed to protect you from your burglar. In a world like that then EVERY crime could potentially contain an element where the victim could sue the police, and the weight of those cases would make normal police work impossible, leading to even more suits against departments.

We can argue about the justness of the rule, but as a matter of public policy it really can't be any other way. As for the specific case, the guy should have had a better lawyer who was smart enough to sue someone else and avoid this whole issue.

Well, that's not all that goes into the rule, Invictus. It would be very easy to craft a rule where the police were not legally responsible to help you if they were across town, but still were legally responsible to help you if you were getting attacked right in front of them and they had nothing more pressing going on.

That's probably what it should be, but that seems like it would get very complicated very quickly and, in the end, lead to a flood of lawsuits as well. It's not an easy issue by any means.

Invictus, sure, that's understandable. If that's the case, I completely get it. But this is the NYPD - they have practically unlimited resources, unlimited to the point that they would probably first get sued for excessive force than for lack thereof - and they were sitting right there watching this guy do his thing. That they are not legally responsible for his injuries when they could have done practically anything other than what they did to assist is just plain stupid.

What makes you think the NYPD has unlimited resources? I also have no idea what this is supposed to mean: "they have practically unlimited resources, unlimited to the point that they would probably first get sued for excessive force than for lack thereof..."

If you ask me, knowing nothing about the case besides what the article says, the cops totally ought to have done something. I should hope they were kicked off the force. But if police aren't liable for not helping police aren't liable for not helping, as outlandishly unjust as that looks in this specific case. Not everything can be resolved in a way that makes sense and works well on a macro and micro level.

As I said, the guy's lawyer should have sued somebody else to get the compensation.

The NYPD has more than one police car preoccupied on the other side of town. That's what I mean. They are huge. While I agree with your sentiment in that police shouldn't always be liable for failing to protect people, they had plenty of opportunity to do so and still didn't. If the law allows for this today, that should be changed by tomorrow.

""People that love freedom want to have the right to carry a gun."

It sure appears that SOMEBODY drank the KOOL ADE.

Pathetic american simpleton."

So someone who loves freedom should want his/her freedom to carry a gun taken away? I quite like my freedom. That includes the 2nd Amendment. Here in America, we won those freedoms through force of arms--in a little scrap with Great Britain that we call the American Revolution. On the other hand, what's one of the first things dictators do? Disarm the people. Gun control: it works (if you want to ensure a tyrannical government stays in power)!

I fully believe in a person's right to be secure in their life and their property. That's what government exists to protect. As pointed out, the police can't protect everyone from every crime. Therefore, it is the responsibility of government to allow citizens to protect themselves.

Of course, this well-reasoned argument can't stand up to the brilliant debate tactic of calling someone on the other side an idiot. My argument trembles in the face of such skillful defense.

Yeah the NYPD has a lot of cops, but New York City also has a lot of people. My example was just an extreme hypothetical, the principle applies just as easily anywhere.

I agree that it sure looks like the cops in this particular case acted terribly and I hope their careers have been ruined. The solution to keep this from happening again is probably a change in department policy rather than changing the law. Once you get lawyers involved suing for damages then they will never stop.