A little tutorial on civil liability. The laws that govern conduct of police officers fall under Section 1983 (tort). While everyone thinks it is the police mans job to "protect" them---not only is this not realistic, it also isn't legal. Consider the number of police officers on any given police force and the number of citizens in need at any given moment. It is a statistical impossibility for the police to protect and keep from harm every citizen within their given jurisdiction. Also, it is not the legal duty of the police to protect, despite the fact that it is displayed on police cars all over the country.

The Supreme Court has ruled that (a) "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). People have repeatedly attempted to sue civil municipalities and entities for failure to protect, yet few prevail.

There are two different considerations of liability, both very different from one another. First of all, did an officer fail to render aid (Did he drive past a building, not realizing a woman was inside screaming for help) ? Or secondly, did an officer actively participate in bringing about a harmful act? (Shooting into a crowd of people in an attempt at apprehending a suspect). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that officers are not civilly liable for failure to render aid, while they have, at times, found officers civilly responsible for those acts where they contributed to an undesirable outcome. However, even in those acts, the litmus test is reasonableness. Did the officer exercise a duty of care in acting in a reasonable manner? This is commonly the question in cases where, for example, a police officer sees a suspect reach into his pocket and pull out something shiny and point it ---and the officer shoots, thinking it is a weapon, only to find out it is a fake weapon, or a cell phone. The officer may not even then be liable---the court must determine after weighing all the facts, did the officer act REASONABLY?

From a legal standpoint, the police had no responsibility to even STOP when they saw the woman standing outside screaming, but they did. And, additionally, they did render aid by helping her get in touch with a friend, and furthermore, by investigating immediately, the next day, through proper procedure (obtaining a search warrant, etc). Sounds like a textbook example of proper police conduct.