It's not just "in reality", it's codified into law: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28

It's not just "in reality", it's codified into law: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=... Or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia It's tough for people to swallow because they've been subtly led to think that the police do have an obligation ala "To Protect and to Serve" like the L.A.P.D. OFFICIAL motto. http://www.lapdonline.org/history_of_the_lapd/content_basic_view/1128 http://www.lapdonline.org/history_of_the_lapd/content_basic_... But it turns out that like corporate-customer-service-speak "How can I help you? You want to cancel? I'm sorry I can't do that it's against policy". Now why is it that way? People in government and the police are worried that you could end up in a situation where the police are held accountable for literally every thing that doesn't go exactly perfect. Even when the reasons it went wrong were out of their control. But I suspect that the balance has been shifted a bit too far towards giving the police the benefit of the doubt, at least re: people's expectations.