The federal appellate has ruled [0] that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone in particular. SCotUS ruled in similar cases [1] [2] that cops just do

The federal appellate has ruled [0] that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone in particular. SCotUS ruled in similar cases [1] [2] that cops just don't have to lift a single finger if it would save your life. That does mean that the police isn't fit for service. You hire a bodyguard and/or private security firm because you do actually need someone working for you whose duty is to protect your person and/or property. Most people with something to protect just buy insurance or a dog or a firearm, but the rich pay more for more active measures, such as monitored home security systems, or full-time on-site guards. It doesn't take much of a stretch to realize that public firefighters likewise do not have a duty to protect your house, specifically, against fires. Hiring private is absolutely an indictment of the inadequacy of the publicly funded protective measures. And once someone has secured a private solution, they have no further interest in fixing or funding the public solution, in the same way that people who send their kids to private schools stop caring about the public schools. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County