I remember reading that when someone actually went to go interview those people, most of them thought that with so many people around, someone must have already called the police. So it wasn't inhumanity, it was buck-passing.
If you were going to be consistent, you'd have to oppose eating any mammals. Another argument I really don't get is the "it violates trust" argument. If dogs in general truested humans in general, what good would guard dogs be?
As to Kitty Genovese, social psychologists suggest that "diffusion of responsibility" could play a part, that is, each person believed that someone else was going to help: excatly as you say. There are many, many factors that influence a person's decision to help someone, such as perceived need, the belief that they can help and are in a position to do so, the belief that they'll be held accountable, and even such factors as temperature and weather play a part.
Well you could have asked me, since I was the one using that argument.
Dogs in general do trust and serve people in general. "Guard dog" is a specialty that builds on the dog's natural tendencies to protect his pack, his family, is master. He will defend that master to his death without question... Are you telling me you don't recognize the responsibility that master has to treat that devotion with respect and returned loyalty? That is the trust, that is the contract.