In January 2013, Joseph Lozito, was stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman. Gelman was on a drug fueled rage and had killed several people already when he was encountered on the train. There were two cops on the train that were part of a specific manhunt for Gelman, but instead of helping Lozito, they just sat by and watched while he got stabbed. They claimed in subsequent lawsuits that they had no duty to protect Lozito and were acquitted in court when they were sued for being cowards. See here. They were also liars, claiming initially that THEY were the ones that subdued Gelman, but that isn’t the point here.
Sadly this is not a lone case, nor an outlier. Qualified Immunity exists and sometimes it really sucks. When cop cars have ‘To Serve and Protect’ written on their cars, do they mean you, the citizen, or their paychecks? Now I in no way mean to demean cops. I appreciate the job that they do. However isn’t the public led to believe that they are here to ‘protect’ us? Sadly that isn’t the case.
Just recently some families of kids that were killed in the Parkland shooting crap tried to sue the coward cop who hid outside and tried to keep others from going in. They were initially stopped by qualified immunity, because he had ‘no duty to protect’ the kids. Now one judge decided to let it go forward a bit for some reason, perhaps just to shame him some more. The parents argued that he DID have a duty to protect being that he was not a regular cop but assigned there specifically to do that. Alas another judge said sorry, as much as he wanted to, qualified immunity still applies here. Yes he was a coward, but that didn’t matter.
Now parents are pissed. Comments range all up and down the spectrum, with most expressing disbelief that he had no duty to protect. One comment was “If they have no duty to protect then what the fuck are we paying them for!?”. A common theme among comments was that once they dropped them off at the school, the school has a duty to protect them. The sad thing is that parents can’t seem to grasp how this plays out in adult life as well. You go to a sporting event and it is a gun-free zone. There is police security but shots ring out and they all go and hide. You can’t sue them as they have qualified immunity. They have been lied to by government and anti-gun forces in this regard. ‘The police are here to protect you’, they say. ‘Just call the cops, no need for you to have a gun’, they say. Sure there is. the reason is because the cops do not have to actually protect you.
Now I understand most of the reason behind it. There would surely be lawyers suing the shit out of cops and security for failure to protect even if they tried but failed. That would result in no cops. But shouldn’t there be some sort of requirement for them to at least try? My first thoughts are that if you are going to prevent me from defending myself, then YOU have a duty to defend me. Otherwise I should be allowed whatever my preferred means are to protect myself or have the option to sue you if you failed to protect me. However I am not sure how this can be worked legally. How much of an effort is enough effort? If I am being held by 6 guys with guns and there is but one cop, does he have a duty to come and get me? I wouldn’t blame him for hiding, but I am sure there are lawyers that would. So, what could be a workable solution? Because on the surface here, it is absurd that someone charged with defending a school and kids can just decide to not do that and face no consequences. Now if I were the governor I would try and find a way to fuck with that fat pension the coward got for dereliction of duty or something. I would certainly do whatever I could to mess with that whole BSO, fire anyone I could, organize recalls on those I couldn’t and use any and every political option I had to make sure everyone involved in that clusterfuck was out of a job, and named, so that future employers can make an informed decision.