Required to do their job?

Was interested to read a piece about a question currently before the Supreme Court: can police be held accountable for failure to enforce an injunction? The arguments are quite striking -- on the one hand, if police can decide not to enforce a restraining order, then there's no use in getting one (and where does the discretion end?); on the other hand, it's not at all clear whether there are explicit precedents for insisting that the police must intervene in specific circumstances where the possible harm derives from another individual (as opposed to a threat from the state). I didn't realize that our protections were so tenuous!

(via How Appealing)