[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Apparently the court relied upon the old Common Law rule that one has no duty to rescue someone in a dangerous situation. There is a case where some one stood at the side of a swimming pool and watched a child drown. The parents sued the man standing by the side of the pool; the court held "NO Duty."

This is why I laugh at those supposed "rugged individualists" on this site. The rationale for these cases rises from the individualism forming one of the premises of the Common Law.

The Civil Law imposes a duty to help one in peril or injured.

I happen to personally believe that an armed policeman should be required to come to the aid of a victim of a crime where possible

[marktwain]

“This is why I laugh at those supposed “rugged individualists” on this site. The rationale for these cases rises from the individualism forming one of the premises of the Common Law.”

I think it is much simpler. If the court ruled that the police had a duty to protect individuals, they could be sued for every crime that occurs. It would rapidly bankrupt the State.

I do not know of any government anywhere that allows police to be sued because an individual was the victim of a crime, unless the police had a “special duty” such as being assigned to guard someone, and then egregiously failed in that “special duty”.