I’ve done some digging on this over the years as this is NOT the first time this question has been asked and I’m sure it is not the last time it ever will either.
There is no “duty to act” on the part of police officers and this has gone through the courts in areas and this topic was reviewed back in my academy days.
https://www.policeone.com/police-jo...cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/
“The so-called public duty doctrine provides that “absent a special relationship between the governmental entity and the injured individual, the governmental entity will not be liable for injury to an individual... the governmental entity owes a duty to the public in general. The doctrine has been commonly described by the oxymoron, ‘duty to all, duty to none’ . . . Following these general principles, “California courts have found no duty of care and have denied liability ‘for injuries caused by the failure of police personnel to respond to requests for assistance, the failure to investigate properly, or the failure to investigate at all, where the police had not induced reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide protection.’”5
and....
https://inpublicsafety.com/2014/03/duty-to-act-legal-obligations-vs-community-expectations/
“The term Duty to Act is a legal term that defines an individual or organization’s legal requirement to take action to prevent harm to a person or the community as a whole . . . Legal Reality on Duty to Act
In 1981, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). The Court stated that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk