NYC driver beaten by motorcyclists

[FanTactical]

Curious what you guys think of this debacle. It now seems that an off-duty NYPD officer was at the scene but didn't do anything to help the driver being beaten. Off duty (even undercover), I expect that officer to try to diffuse things.

Not trying to insight anything here, but I drive I-5 btw. LA and SF a lot. Several times my wife and I have been swarmed by various biker gangs (mongrals, hells angels and top hatters). It's a bit unnerving. All it takes is for one idiot in the pack to do something stupid as a joke.

I've played out the scenario in my mind of what I would do if we were forced to pull over - no help for miles. I confess that I would've reacted the same as the victim, and what I imagine happens next is never pretty.

[1CavScout]

Actual outlaw MC's (it's Mongols btw) pose very little threat to the general public IMO (at least as far as incidents like this are concerned). The big clubs (Mongols, HA etc...) are all about business. Doing something like you saw in NY is not good for business. The guys in NY were not part of a "Gang" IMO. Nobody was flying colors from what I saw in the video.

[FanTactical]

Originally Posted by 1CavScout

Actual outlaw MC's (it's Mongols btw) pose very little threat to the general public IMO (at least as far as incidents like this are concerned).

Sorry, it was late; I meant Mongols. Probably pissed a few of 'em off that are reading this. You may be right about those clubs; I'm certainly no expert. My point was about the scenario of being forced to stop and what one's natural reaction would be in a case like that. I would've reacted the same way.

If, indeed, there had been an officer at the scene that stood by and did nothing, I would want him/her held accountable.

[ptusa]

Mongols...Mongrals...Mongrels.

Potato, Potahto...

[edgerly779]

The off duty nypd detective that was riding in the group did nothing. He retained an attorney and is hiding behind him and his union rep. Hope he is fired and loses his pension for this. He is a disgrace to law enforcement.

[Ron-Solo]

Originally Posted by FanTactical

If, indeed, there had been an officer at the scene that stood by and did nothing, I would want him/her held accountable.

Originally Posted by edgerly779

The off duty nypd detective that was riding in the group did nothing. He retained an attorney and is hiding behind him and his union rep. Hope he is fired and loses his pension for this. He is a disgrace to law enforcement.

Held accountable for what? Participating in a mass violation of traffic laws? Sure, but you'd better be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated some traffic laws.

Held accountable for not stopping an angry mob intent on doing harm? There is no safe tactical solution to stop a mob like that, IF he was even present at the beating. He is not required to embark on a suicide mission when off duty.

[Vin63]

Yeah, it's been adjudicated countless times that law enforcement personnel are not liable, legally responsible or culpable for anyone's safety even while observing a crime being committed or even if the perp is in custody of said law enforcement agency. They have no obligation to prevent a crime or to maintain a citizen's safety. Here are just a few of the more notable examples:

Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958);
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968);
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985);
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984);
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982);
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978);
Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977);
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.);
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969); and
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)

[FanTactical]

I guess we disagree. This goes beyond case law, and I wasn't saying that he should be held legally accountable. It's about being a compassionate human being. IMHO the officer doesn't represent his profession very well. Not sayin' he had to take on an angry mob, but most people in a mob are influenced by one or two instigators. Diverting attention from those instigators can do a lot to calm things down.

Isn't it a LEO tactic to target the instigators in mob situations?

[Vin63]

Originally Posted by FanTactical

...This goes beyond case law, and I wasn't saying that he should be held legally accountable...

I hear ya...but, if he is law enforcement officer, he is bound to and operates by the law...getting fired for or being held legally accountable for adhering to the law brings about its own legal consequences...

We'll see how things pan out on the ethical side of things.

[muttonbuster]

Perhaps it varies by department. I've been reading quite a bit on this. On WPIX New York, a former detective stated that according to the NYPD parol guide whether on duty or off duty if you can take police action, you are obligated to do so.

http://pix11.com/2013/10/05/did-unde...#axzz2gvcIL9eC

Also, there wasn't just one officer present, there were several.

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?se...rld&id=9275585

My question on this (and was hoping to get a LEO's opinion), is what exactly does off duty mean in regards to an undercover officer? Do they mean he wasn't working a regular beat, but was working undercover at the time? Could be wrong, but I was pretty sure hours aren't set for undercover work. The news stated he was "off the clock". I was thinking if you're investigating this group (that by several accounts has been menacing the city), and went for a ride with them, wouldn't you want to get paid?

[Ron-Solo]

Lots of armchair quarterbacking going on here.

[Daveca]

Originally Posted by Ron-Solo

Held accountable for what? Participating in a mass violation of traffic laws? Sure, but you'd better be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated some traffic laws.

Held accountable for not stopping an angry mob intent on doing harm? There is no safe tactical solution to stop a mob like that, IF he was even present at the beating. He is not required to embark on a suicide mission when off duty.

Since when can a police officer, on or off duty just simply stand by and watch someone get beaten like that. His job, on or off duty is to attempt to stop this type of criminal activity. Even you said they were an "angry mob". As a police office, he has a moral and an ethical responsibility and a professional duty to stop the activity and prevent injury to a victim of an attack. And who ever said his attempt to stop this had to be safe for him? Police deal with risky situations on a continuing basis. Stopping an "angry mob intent on doing harm" is what he took an oath to do. It did not appear to be a "suicide mission" since no weapons were displayed at the time, and maybe the intervention of a police officer with some balls could have caused a de-escalation of the situation. My gosh, If you are a LEO, I'm glad we never had any like you in my Dept. I don't mean to be rude with my comments, but that position is disgusting and is a major reason the public has no faith in some law enforcement today. And, yes, I've been there. Former Texas State Trooper.

[Daveca]

They apparently now have over 200 recorded 911 calls from the public reporting the bikers in this incident, (which are not Mongols, Hell's Angels or any other organized Criminal Enterprise Motorcycle Gang), (RICO Act potential), for cornering several other motorists, harrassing, threatening and intimidating drivers at about the same time, along with numerous videos of them violating traffic laws in the process, which was on the evening news Sat. evening. The latest report, which remains to be verified also said there may have been as many a 5 off duty officers riding with the bikers. I sure hope not. That would truly be another black eye for Law Enforcement at a time whe it is really not needed. I really hope there are still some Officers out there who still feel the way I do.

[Vin63]

Originally Posted by Daveca

Since when can a police officer, on or off duty just simply stand by and watch someone get beaten like that. His job, on or off duty is to attempt to stop this type of criminal activity...

See the list of cases in my post #7, particularly Davidson v. City of Westminster. This is the case I read that is most referred to in these types of instances for law enforcement not getting involved in acts of crime they witness or are present during the commission:

Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982): a man stabbed Yolanda Davidson while she was using a laundromat. At the time of the stabbing, police officers had the laundromat under surveillance for the purpose of preventing assaults and apprehending the perpetrator of three stabbings that had occurred there or at nearby laundromats. Thus, the officers knew Davidson was in the laundromat. When the officers saw the man enter and leave the laundromat several times, they believed that he was the likely perpetrator of at least one of the prior assaults. Nevertheless, the officers did not warn Davidson, and she eventually was stabbed inside the laundromat. (Id. at p. 201.) The Supreme Court concluded the officers had no duty to warn or to otherwise protect Davidson.

[FanTactical]

Originally Posted by Ron-Solo

Lots of armchair quarterbacking going on here.

Um, I think that is what a discussion forum is for, at least the discussing part.

I respect your many years of service, which gives you unique insight on things like this. However, I think the public has a different expectation of LEOs. The same holds true for all public servants. I'd hate to see it get to the point where the public regards LE the same as it does its elected officials.

Vin63 - Any more recent cases? Most of those are 20 yrs. old - not that it matters from a precedence standpoint, but I'm curious because time and attitudes have changed a lot in those 20 yrs. Consider how much we've had to fight lately just to keep 2nd amend. rights.

[yzErnie]

I wasn't there and won't second guess why he/they did not get involved.

I will say this though, as a retired career cop I'm guessing the mob (in their frenzie) would have turned on them as well and when they came after them with helmets flying and the off-dutys shot one or two of them people would be howling about that too. Sometimes you can never do the right things in some people's minds.

[Vin63]

Originally Posted by FanTactical

...Vin63 - Any more recent cases? Most of those are 20 yrs. old - not that it matters from a precedence standpoint, but I'm curious because time and attitudes have changed a lot in those 20 yrs. Consider how much we've had to fight lately just to keep 2nd amend. rights.

Since these cases reached and were ruled upon by the Supreme Court, I don't think there have been any other cases recognized/brought to/read to challenge these prior rulings...the precedent has been firmly established. I think the most recent pertained to and challenged a prior restraining order ruling, and it looks like that one is even more firmly set now:

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez 545 U.S. 748 (2005). was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

[retired]

Half the reason the rest of them thought they could ride like that I they knew thy had their cop buddies to back them up.

Before you make statements like this, you had better have some evidence to back it up and you don't.

My gosh, If you are a LEO, I'm glad we never had any like you in my Dept. I don't mean to be rude with my comments,

Well you failed as you were rude. Personal attacks against members are not permitted on Calguns and an attack against an active or retired leo is also not permitted. This is true even if you are an active or retired leo yourself.

I would suggest some of you need to read the rules for this speciality forum prior to posting again, otherwise you will be banned from this forum. Since we do not want to ban any member from any forum, please do so.

As the article I read stated, the officials have said this is a complex investigation. It will take time to do it and if the investigation results in officers being found in violation of the law or their policy, they, the DA and the courts will decide what will be done.

Discussion of the event is one thing; comments about them getting off, coverup, etc. will just get you removed from this forum. I would surmise this investigation will be a long one due to the amount of people involved.

As far as the NYPD's policy that off duty officers must get involved in certain situations, Vin63 has already shown the US Supreme Court has said otherwise. Whether or not the PD can still discipline the officers for violating their policy in the presence of that decision remains to be seen.

I know when I went thru the academy, we were told our involvement could range from making a phone call to the local agency and up to using deadly force. We were not required to become involved physically tho and being a good witness was stressed. This was especially the case if we had family members present, tho I realize this probably isn't applicable in this motorcycle incident.

[infamous1979]

The investigation will be conducted and the truth hopefully will be found. As for him doing something or nothing, that has to be proven one way or another. Cop or not one person trying to diffuse a crazy situation like that, is tough. As for him hiding behind a lawyer or his rep, he is allowed to have representation, especially in a situation that Gloria Alred is involved with. I would lawyer up to protect myself....thats just smart.

[sternshot44]

I understand people expect an officer to do something even if he is off duty. But given the situation any LEO has to play out the scenarios in his head before taking action. If he were to go in there in street clothes identify himself as an LEO (plus if he is undercover like some versions of the story have read, it is likely he has nothing on his person to identify him as LE) you really think all those people who are already bashing away at a car, are just going to drop what they are doing and apologize? No, in my opinion and experience which is in now way or form a fact but just that an OPINION those other riders are just going to blow right through him and carry on, and the off duty LEO will most likely have been injured in the process. What people sometimes don't understand is in some situations the best way to help is to be the best eyewitness possible. I am in no way saying what the off duty LEO did was right or wrong, all i am saying is unless you were there and saw the incident occur first hand and know what those bikers are capable of then we cant say what the officer did is right or wrong.

As for the former Texas State Trooper, it saddens me that you are so quick to judge a fellow LE brother. You more than most should know things are not always what they seem or as the media portrays them to be. And should have confidence in the officer's judgement unless there is in obvious reason not too.

[Daveca]

I guess discussions are now censored to suit the opinions of those who don't agree with the idea that Police are there to Protect and Serve the people, but simply to do "what" they want "when" they want. Anything stated to the contrary is threatened with exile from the forum of discussions. I always thought that this is what discussions were for, people commenting their ideas and opinions, as we all have differences. I didn't set out to critisize anyone (LEO) for feeling as though they would have done nothing in the circumstances of the NY case , at least as we have heard those circumstances to be. I just said I'm glad I never knew any LEOs who would have stood there w/o assisting to de-escalte the incident, and glad we had no one I knew to be of that attitude. It's just all part of the discussion. I used to think LEOs were a little more thick skinned than to let a comment in a discussion "hurt their feelings." I guess some of them are like a lot of others these days. No matter what you say, someone is going to whine that a simple comment in a discussion hurts someone's feelings. If I hurt the feelings of the one who made the comment that they didn't see any need to act or assist, then I apologize for directing my statements at them. However, I stand by my position in general toward LEOs with those attitudes, just not any particular individuals. Many on here agree with me.
Also, while I don't know the case, other than what has been posted here, the Westminster case did not say the officers witnessed the stabbing. They saw the suspect go in and out of the laundromat, and minutes later found out about the stabbing. Since they didn't witness or know of or suspect the stabbing was about to occurr in the moments prior to it occurring, the Court said they had no duty to warn Davidson in advance of the man's conduct. That however, is not the case of the NY incident as it has been reported. If the cops had witnessed the Davidson stabbing and still done nothing, I think the ruling would have been much different. We will see as the NY case progresses because the facts of the case are so different.
I find it to be a shame that these forum are now telling people what they can or can't talk about. Next, they'll be trying to tell us what to think, a lot like
our fine President Obama and friends. Sound familiar?

[Daveca]

Originally Posted by sternshot44

I understand people expect an officer to do something even if he is off duty. But given the situation any LEO has to play out the scenarios in his head before taking action. If he were to go in there in street clothes identify himself as an LEO (plus if he is undercover like some versions of the story have read, it is likely he has nothing on his person to identify him as LE) you really think all those people who are already bashing away at a car, are just going to drop what they are doing and apologize? No, in my opinion and experience which is in now way or form a fact but just that an OPINION those other riders are just going to blow right through him and carry on, and the off duty LEO will most likely have been injured in the process. What people sometimes don't understand is in some situations the best way to help is to be the best eyewitness possible. I am in no way saying what the off duty LEO did was right or wrong, all i am saying is unless you were there and saw the incident occur first hand and know what those bikers are capable of then we cant say what the officer did is right or wrong.

As for the former Texas State Trooper, it saddens me that you are so quick to judge a fellow LE brother. You more than most should know things are not always what they seem or as the media portrays them to be. And should have confidence in the officer's judgement unless there is in obvious reason not too.

You are right. I have no confidence in the Officer's decision, because he was wrong. Where does this guy draw the line? Let the guy get pulled from his SUV and simply beaten? Pulled out and stabbed, shot, murdered. At that point he didn't know what they were going to doto the guy, which is all the more reason to intervene. What if we were having this discussion today and they had not just beat him and slashed his face, but had murdered him? That could have easily happened here. No officer worth his salt, in my opinion should stand by and watch this happen. At least not where I grew up. Maybe NY is different, which takes me back to my point, I'm glad we didn't have gutless cops who were afraid to do their job. Even if he was working undercover, no undercover case is worth risking a citizen's life just to keep you cover. I'll bet the man and his family agree with me, and so would you in his situation

[Daveca]

I think these posts have said it all. Everyone has their own opinion. I'm just going to let it go at that.

[Ron-Solo]

[doctor_vals]

Originally Posted by Ron-Solo

Held accountable for what? Participating in a mass violation of traffic laws? Sure, but you'd better be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated some traffic laws.

Held accountable for not stopping an angry mob intent on doing harm? There is no safe tactical solution to stop a mob like that, IF he was even present at the beating. He is not required to embark on a suicide mission when off duty.

Is he required to report to agency IMMEDIATELY what happen, when he was at crime scene? Why he wrote report 3 days AFTER? What he want to hide during these days?

[w55]

Mob attack was stopped by a 50 plus year old citizen on way to church. Its sad to see "its not Our job" type posts. I get that, its not my job to do alot of things but I do anyway. Reminds me of mindset certain bay area FD that asked 18 y/o women to go retrieve body cause "didn't have water training"

[smak28]

His 2yr old kid and his wife was in the car. I would do the same if my family was in danger. I would flee if my family was in danger.

[CBR_rider]

I don't know enough about where he was, what he did/didn't do, in what capacity he/she was riding in, etc to make a decision. Regardless, there are certainly some things ANYONE can do to at least attempt to diffuse the situation without indicating they are LEO (which in such crowds often means jack squat). But again, we all have no idea if any actions were taken or if the officer was in a position to take any, period. There is a huge difference between the off-duty officer watching the whole incident go down from five feet away to him rolling up on the assault as the crowd was dispersing.

[yzErnie]

Originally Posted by doctor_vals

Why he wrote report 3 days AFTER? What he want to hide during these days?

A simply assinine assumption on your part.

[retired]

Originally Posted by Daveca

I guess discussions are now censored to suit the opinions of those who don't agree with the idea that Police are there to Protect and Serve the people, but simply to do "what" they want "when" they want. Anything stated to the contrary is threatened with exile from the forum of discussions. I always thought that this is what discussions were for, people commenting their ideas and opinions, as we all have differences. I didn't set out to critisize anyone (LEO) for feeling as though they would have done nothing in the circumstances of the NY case , at least as we have heard those circumstances to be. I just said I'm glad I never knew any LEOs who would have stood there w/o assisting to de-escalte the incident, and glad we had no one I knew to be of that attitude. It's just all part of the discussion. I used to think LEOs were a little more thick skinned than to let a comment in a discussion "hurt their feelings." I guess some of them are like a lot of others these days. No matter what you say, someone is going to whine that a simple comment in a discussion hurts someone's feelings. If I hurt the feelings of the one who made the comment that they didn't see any need to act or assist, then I apologize for directing my statements at them. However, I stand by my position in general toward LEOs with those attitudes, just not any particular individuals. Many on here agree with me.
Also, while I don't know the case, other than what has been posted here, the Westminster case did not say the officers witnessed the stabbing. They saw the suspect go in and out of the laundromat, and minutes later found out about the stabbing. Since they didn't witness or know of or suspect the stabbing was about to occurr in the moments prior to it occurring, the Court said they had no duty to warn Davidson in advance of the man's conduct. That however, is not the case of the NY incident as it has been reported. If the cops had witnessed the Davidson stabbing and still done nothing, I think the ruling would have been much different. We will see as the NY case progresses because the facts of the case are so different.
I find it to be a shame that these forum are now telling people what they can or can't talk about. Next, they'll be trying to tell us what to think, a lot like
our fine President Obama and friends. Sound familiar?

My gosh, If you are a LEO, I'm glad we never had any like you in my Dept.

This is a direct attack against another member and I can't get any more clear than I was in my last post. You obviously did not take the time since I wrote my post to review the rules in the sticky near the top of this specialty forum or you would not have written what you wrote in this post.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that you have a First Amendment right on this forum to write what you want. You are mistaken, as this is a private forum and you do not have that right. The owner has decided on the rules and the staff enforce them. If you don't wish to follow them it is certainly your prerogative to quit and begin your own forum that has no rules. While you are on this forum, you will follow the rules or there will be consequences.

One of those consequences is you are going to have a few days away from Calguns to think about whether you wish to follow the rules or not. I hope you make the decision to do so and we will go forward from there.

[retired]

It seems socaloc and Daveca are one and the same, so the 3 day ban just turned into a perma ban.

[yzErnie]

The old man can still swing a mean hammer!!!!!