Why "stand your ground" is good law

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Sanford

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
3,702
Reaction score
298
Location
40 Miles S. of Nowhere, OK.
... for both Carry and Stand your Ground. Just because the police are there doesn't mean they're going to help you.

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

He says he put his life on the line to stop a killer — and claims cops sat back and watched.

But city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island dad stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman — a courtroom maneuver the subway hero calls “disgraceful.”

A judge is currently deciding whether Lozito, who sued the city last year for failing to prevent the attack, will get his day in court.

The drug-fueled Gelman had fatally stabbed three people in Brooklyn and killed another with a car during a 28-hour rampage when he entered an uptown No. 3 train on Feb. 12, 2011.

Police officers Terrance Howell and Tamara Taylor were part of a massive NYPD manhunt. They were in the operator’s cab, watching the tracks between Penn Station and 42nd Street for any sign of the fugitive. Lozito was seated next to the cab.

In the official NYPD account and Howell’s own affidavit, Howell heroically tackled and subdued the killer. But Lozito tells a different story.

The 42-year-old mixed-martial-arts fan says he watched Gelman approach the cab window, barking: “Let me in!” Gelman even claimed to be a cop, but a dismissive Howell turned away, he says.

Gelman walked off. A straphanger recognizing Gelman tried to alert the cops, but was also rebuffed. A minute later, Gelman returned and set his sights on the 6-foot-2, 270-pound Lozito.

“You’re going to die,” Gelman announced — then stabbed him in the face.

Lozito leapt from his seat and lunged at the 23-year-old Gelman as the psycho sliced at him.

“Most of my wounds are in the back of my head,” Lozito said. “He got to the back of my head because my left shoulder [was] in his waist.”

In his account, Lozito pinned Gelman to the floor, disarming him. Howell then emerged from the booth, tapping Lozito’s shoulder: “You can get up now,” he said.

“By the time he got there, the dirty work was already done,” Lozito said.


Gelman was convicted in the spree — which left his girlfriend, her mother, his stepfather and a pedestrian dead, and five others injured.

Lozito says a grand-jury member later told him Howell admitted on the stand that he hid during the attack because he thought Gelman had a gun.

An angry Lozito decided to sue the city for negligence, arguing the cops should have recognized Gelman and prevented, or reacted more quickly to, the assault.

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.

Lozito says his case is different.

“If the cop is on the train, and I get robbed by a stranger, of course, the cop can’t be clairvoyant,” Lozito told The Post. “But when they’re looking for Maksim Gelman, and Maksim Gelman bangs on the door and says, ‘Let me in, I’m a cop’ and all you say is: ‘No, you’re not?’ ”

1. Joseph Lozito enters the uptown No. 3 train, sitting behind the train operator. Officers Terrance Howell and Tamara Taylor enter the operator’s booth; a few minutes later, the train slowly pulls out of Penn Station.

2. Maksim Gelman walks up to the booth and says: “Let me in!” Howell allegedly dismisses him and Gelman walks away.

3. Minutes later, Gelman walks back up to the booth, looks at Lozito, says “You’re going to die,” and stabs him.

4. Lozito fights back, getting seven stab wounds during the 60-second struggle with Gelman, eventually pinning him and knocking the knife away.

5. Howell allegedly emerges from the booth, taps Lozito on the shoulder and says: “You can get up now.”
 

abajaj11

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
31
Location
Tulsa
The only "debate" on stand your ground is as follows: Do you believe that a person who or whose loved ones are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm has a duty to retreat, or are they allowed to use lethal force immediately to alleviate this imminent danger?

Keep in mind, the danger is imminent, meaning you have seconds or less to react. What would you rather do if you felt you or your loved ones had only seconds or less to live or risk grave bodily harm? Look around for retreat avenues, or neutralize the threat?

That's the only debate. The anti-2A folks clearly want you to not use lethal force. If you do, they will sue you. Of course, many of them have bodyguards and will not encounter a situation where they have seconds or less to decide. But if you believe in 2A and the empowerment of the common person, then where is the debate?
:)

Check this link out:
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/rep-who-backed-stand-your-ground-if-law-goes-away-/nY2F6/

SYG is used by African Americans more to stay out of jail when they have rightfully defended themselves.
:)
 

KWILL

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Location
Perry
The only "debate" on stand your ground is as follows: Do you believe that a person who or whose loved ones are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm has a duty to retreat, or are they allowed to use lethal force immediately to alleviate this imminent danger?

Keep in mind, the danger is imminent, meaning you have seconds or less to react. What would you rather do if you felt you or your loved ones had only seconds or less to live or risk grave bodily harm? Look around for retreat avenues, or neutralize the threat?

That's the only debate. The anti-2A folks clearly want you to not use lethal force. If you do, they will sue you. Of course, many of them have bodyguards and will not encounter a situation where they have seconds or less to decide. But if you believe in 2A and the empowerment of the common person, then where is the debate?
:)

There is no debate in my eyes, and never will be a debate. I can't imagine how any jury in our country could possibly put me away for defending myself and/or my family. Now I understand that I will possibly and probably be arrested if I kill someone, whether defending or not but conviction. I don't see how it could happen. maybe I am naive.
 

twoguns?

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
28
Location
LTown to the Lst
There is no debate in my eyes, and never will be a debate. I can't imagine how any jury in our country could possibly put me away for defending myself and/or my family. Now I understand that I will possibly and probably be arrested if I kill someone, whether defending or not but conviction. I don't see how it could happen. maybe I am naive.

Welcome.... ;) , Keep coming back , youll understand shortly.

Someone will be along shortly to clarify these situations.
 

abajaj11

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
31
Location
Tulsa
There is no debate in my eyes, and never will be a debate. I can't imagine how any jury in our country could possibly put me away for defending myself and/or my family. Now I understand that I will possibly and probably be arrested if I kill someone, whether defending or not but conviction. I don't see how it could happen. maybe I am naive.

The goal, IMHO, of the anti-2As, is a cultural realignment of the USA, so that guns are viewed as ALWAYS evil, and any use of guns by ANYBODY is considered EXCESSIVE and UNREASONABLE.
This is the current cultural situation in the UK and to some extent in Australia and Canada and the rest of Europe as well. The population are like sheep, held to the mercy of the criminal wolves and sometimes even the the law enforcement folks who violate rights in the name of doing their jobs.
ANY attempt to defend oneself from criminals with a firearm is considered excessive and firearms have been banned from being accessible to the general public. They have to be stored in clubs, in lockers, etc. and are accessible ONLY for recreational events

This is the goal of the anti-2As here.
Under such a situation, once all guns were banned from immediate access to the public, how would you even legally be ABLE to use a firearm to defend yourself under any situation? You wouldn't. and the anti-s would have won.

We HAVE to win this cultural war IMHO. We have to show the kids of today that GUNS in the hands of GOOD PEOPLE are a GOOD THING.
Think about why the schools are so rabidly against arming any teachers or anyone on campus. Think about why the NRA's suggestion to have armed guards on school campuses was met with such scorn. Is it because the anti-2As don't believe that guns can protect our kids? NOT at ALL. Most of these anti-2A elites are SURROUNDED by people guarding them with guns. IMHO, the ONLY reason they are so against guns in schools in the hands of good people, is because they are COMMITTED to the cultural war of showing our kids that ALL GUNS are EVIL ALL THE TIME and are NOT a legitimate tool for self defense. Winning this war and allowing our teachers with carry permits to carry in schools will go a long way toward winning this cultural war.
As a first step, we need to replace Sen. Ford in the OK senate who has helped kill Bills to allow teachers to be armed in OK.
:)
 

ASP785

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
4
Location
Collinsville
We HAVE to win this cultural war. We have to show the kids of today that GUNS in the hands of GOOD PEOPLE are a GOOD THING.
Think about why the schools are so rabidly against arming any teachers or anyone on campus. Think about why the NRA's suggestion to have armed guards on school campuses was met with such scorn. Is it because the anti-2As don't believe that guns can protect our kids? NOT at ALL. Most of these anti-2A elites are SURROUNDED by people guarding them with guns. IMHO, the ONLY reason they are so against guns in schools in the hands of good people, is because they are COMMITTED to the cultural war of showing our kids that ALL GUNS are EVIL ALL THE TIME and are NOT a legitimate tool for self defense. Winning this war and allowing our teachers with carry permits to carry in schools will go a long way toward winning this cultural war.
As a first step, we need to replace Sen. Ford in the OK senate who has helped kill Bills to allow teachers to be armed in OK.
:)

Best statement in the whole thread!
 

WessonOil

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Location
Norman
I'm not really able to think of ANYTHING that exists, whether it an item or law, that you're unable to find it misused at least once or used in som illegal sort of way.

For every instance where someone may have c;laimed SYG in a questionble circumstance, there are a multitude in which it wasn't.

Someone has a tagline here that says something to the effect of, "When we have many attacks being committed by Muslims, we are told that not all Muslims are the same, but when ne crazy person with a gun commits a crime, we are being told that all gun owners are crazy."

The same thing is taking place with the SYG Law.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom