The NYPD Has No Duty to Protect & Serve

It's sad but true apparently. The police can, but do not legally have to protect and serve citizens. Their only legal function is to enforce the law.



Feb 14, 2011
Joseph Lozito Used Martial Arts Tactic He Saw on TV to End Alleged Stabber's Spree

Joseph Lozito, the man being dubbed a hero for helping disarm and capture a New York man accused of going on a 28 hour stabbing spree, says that watching mixed martial arts fights for 20 years may have saved his life.

Lozito used his leg to sweep Maksim Gelman off his feet when the accused killer lunged at him on a subway car with what Lozito described as a "giant knife."

Who is Maksim Gelman?

Remorseless ‘Mad’ Maksim Gelman gets 200 years for killing 4 in Brooklyn ; says ‘not my fault this happened’

City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero who subdued killer

The city routinely settles such litigation but is playing hardball with Lozito, insisting his demand for unspecified money damages be tossed because the police had no “special duty” to protect him or any individual on the train that day.

“Under well-established law, the police are not liable for such incidents,” said city lawyer David Santoro. “That doesn't detract from the Police Department's public safety mission -- or the fact that New York is the safest big city in America."

Experts say it’s a long-standing legal precedent requiring police to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual’s rights.

Additional Reading
Badass of the Week
Warren v District of Columbia

case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

No law enforcement does

The SCOTUS has ruled on this

Warren vs District of Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

Link

Guns save lives

Old news

It appears to me, an outsider to your system, that the old claim to protect and serve should be revisited.

Perhaps a slogan "You will submit and obey" would be more fitting as it does not imply a service to protect or serve, and leaves the average citizen with little or no doubt about their position in the grand scheme of things.

It's becoming a case of, if you see an officer, you stop what you're doing, maintain a position of non threatening submission, offer no resistence and then respond "Thank you sir." before you are allowed to resume you normal daily routine.

And that's just seeing one walking down the street.

If you are in need of assistance, you need to be very clear of what your rights are. None.

And if you are the perpetrator, be prepared that it is likely to be your last day on earth as the executioners will have no qualms in enacting swift justice - and you'll deserve it.

"Submit and Obey. I am your law."

tyrant kings of yesteryear would be so proud to have such legions in their ranks.

reply to post by semperfortis


Thank you but I supplied that case in the OP. I'm just surprised that the motto "Protect & Serve" doesn't really mean anything.

Protect - to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction
Serve - to be a servant

I also understand the case Warren V District Columbia was more or less a way to say "Hey we can't help everybody, things happen". However in the above case, an officer was on scene and failed to provide assistance. Then afterwards claimed credit.

I'm an outsider to the US, never been not sure if I will go. I did once live in the UK so have a view on how the cops are treated there and I suspect it's not too far from the US.
I'm wondering how anyone could expect someone to sign up to protect and serve a community that has no respect for law or the people whose JOB it is to enforce it.
From what little i have seen on ATS it looks to me society gets pissy when they get caught doing naughty things , and primarily the 'messengers get shot'

There is corruption in all walks of life but society is not making it any easier for the good ones to do their job.

By making mountains out of molehills , eg cops slapping boy for biting , you are taking focus from the REAL cases of corruption and wrong doings.

I'm not sure why anyone signs up to be cops these days, they are just pawns in the game of life.Would anyone here sigh up to protect ungrateful vicious citizens who already loathe ALL PIGS ?

I salute all cops out there putting their life on the lines for a largely ungrateful world .

Just an opinion from an outsider

That is all

reply to post by ATSmediaPRO


The reasoning behind the ruling is sound

If Officers are "required" to protect and serve, they lose discretionary arrest powers

What that would mean is EVERY offense would require action
Dirty license plates
Only signalling a turn 90ft instead of 100

You can see the turmoil

It also would open up law enforcement to civil suits every time someone felt they should be first

But don't worry, though they have no obligation to protect you, they do request you give up all your own means of protection.

Namely your gun, don't worry though the Police are your friends.

so, why are we required to pay taxes to fund a para military organization that has no obligation to protect us?
Where does it get it`s constitutional powers to even exist if it has no obligation to:

establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,

??

reply to post by ATSmediaPRO


So when the cops are hunting down murderers/serial killers/rapists etc and taking them off the streets, they aren't protecting anyone? and - in doing so - they aren't serving the public interest at large?

Or do we live in a world where the meaning of words only apply to a particular paradigm to suit an argument?

reply to post by semperfortis

I suggest cutting the salaries of law enforcement by up to 50% and then issue bonuses for actually protecting the civilian population.