No. My premise is that there are certain members of society that dedicate their lives to the preservation of society (police, firemen, military, etc.) and are given special trust and confidence. Society holds them to a much higher standard because of the trust given. As an extension, special consideration should then be given when these members of society fall in the line of duty. We hold no State funerals for the average Joe, nor should we. His family bears this burden, whereas society pays tribute to their honored dead. They are in no wise 'elite' but are indeed more important in the respect I have outlined.
LEO's defend the defenseless and often give their lives in this service. We should honor them for this sacrifice and focus our righteous anger at those who take their lives maliciously.
Your point about the government failing to protect four of its agents, is a logical fallicy. The point is that a member of society (criminal) murdered another member of society that held sacred trust and bore the burden of protecting the weak. Your argument should not be that government failed the agent, but that the agent died while in the performance of his government appointed duties. Just as an invading force must defeat the enemy stronghold in order to enforce its will on the vanquished, the criminal element must defeat the law enforcement officers to enact their will on the lambs of society.
As I stated in my first post, every murder is tragic. However, those people who bear the burden of protecting society should be given special consideration because of their largess.
I think this is the crux of the matter. I think that the aforementioned (or at least the police) are dedicated to the preservation of government rather than society. For example, who rendered the remainder of society defenseless? Why the government of Philly of course, so having rendered all of its law abiding citizens defenseless, it then says that the police will protect you and of course they don't (you could ask the murdered victims families). SO I disagree with the role of government to protect the defenseless since the government was the one that rendered them defenseless in the first place. If the government wanted to protect law abiding members of society they wouldn't have disarmed them would they?
Secondly I disagree that government agents are "held to a higher standard" They're not. They're held to a much LOWER standard. We ordinary citizens have to follow laws. Armed government agents only have to follow "departmental guidelines" As evidence look at the numbers of innocent serfs killed by police and just exactly how many of them are prosecuted and convicted.
The police may in their role of government agents may bear the responsibility of protecting society, but in their role as government agents also bear the responsibility for rendering the remainder of the citizenry in need of protection in the first place by enforcing victim disarmament laws.