There's a lot going on here. I'm going to argue that the cops were not necessarily wrong. But I will agree with the point, that they may not help you.

The cops may not have been as wrong as this guy believes they are. When the man approached, they asked who he was. They didn't necessarily get a picture of this guy before they were placed on that train for extra attention. Very shortly after that, question, the man was assaulting an innocent bystander (Joe). While his play by play took a little time to tell, it likely two a few short seconds to actually play out. In that short time, the cops have to decide what to do. Do they get into a gun fight (believing he had a gun) on a crowded train without shooting from a position of cover? Maybe, maybe not. They apparently choose cover. Should they go shoot the guy with the knife? If they did, other people, especially Joe would have been in very real risk of being shot as well. I'm not saying the cops did it right, I'm just saying that it may not have been as wrong as presented.

I saw a video some time back of a man stabbing another man repeatedly while people around, including the woman with the camera, shouted in horror. The first officer arrived, approached with gun drawn shouting commands, and fired a very well aimed shot at close distance from a specifically safe angle where no one else was behind the gun. When I tried to look up that video, I found one where the police shot the man with the knife who had a hostage. The hostage is dead now too.

All that being said, the police cannot be said to have a legal duty to protect you. There are too many situations where people get injured or killed, and they wouldn't if the cop had done something different, but the cop believed he was being reasonable at the time. If the courts maintained a duty to protect, then police would be sued over every failure to protect. That's why there is a precedent against having a legal duty. That's why the Parkland officer who failed to address the school shooting is a coward, and is socially shamed, and is out of a job, but is not legally liable.

The only possible reason I can think of that the officers did not render aid is because he was not squirting or gushing blood and they already called for an ambulance. If that's the case, then he was not at risk of dying, but helping him would put them at risk of blood-borne pathogens.

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

So you tell me with each child dying from a drunk driver, why the Left is not all over the media pretending to be outraged over these innocent children's deaths? Do you have any idea how many more children are killed by drunk drivers than by guns in schools?

Where is the outrage and demand for alcohol regulations and back ground checks in public bars, nightclubs, etc.

If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't the Left propose laws mandating back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?

I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.

Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? Approximately 40% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders! They drive even when their licenses are revoked!

The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!

Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?

You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?

I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?

A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.

You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.

You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.

You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!

IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.

Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.