Cboldt, I disagree. I think there was a sign of imminent danger and they knew, or should have known, that they were putting her in harms way. Not only was she being harassed inside the store, which in itself might be sufficient, but according to the earlier posts she actually pleaded with the police not to put her out there with them because of her own fears for her safety. The police would have determined that those fears were well-founded in light of the way that she was being abused inside the store.
I hear you, and that is likewise a fair argument. I simply predict that the Court will find otherwise. Whatever tussle was going on in the store was something short of beating and robbery. The street, in general, is not perfectly safe (I don't know how many beatings and robberies occur in Seattle on any given day, but am certain it is greater than zero. The fact that the victim pleaded for assistance is common - see battered wives. They also have well founded fears, but the police have NO duty, NONE, to protect any particular individual who is being bullied, or who has been threatened. They might decide to assist, sure. But they have no affirmative duty to do so.