According to the US Supreme Court, the police have no duty to protect citizens[0], even if they obtain a court-issued protective order.
Cars are insecure on purpose because people accidentally lock their keys inside all the time so locksmiths need to be able to get into them. Likewise, locks on homes are insecure on purpose because people lock themselves out. The entire system of locks is based on the assumption that crime is rare and criminals will pick the easiest targets. If crime ceases to be rare, it falls apart very quickly.
There is no developed country in the world that does not have legal and LE discretion.
It’s only the fact that the US has a common law system that this case even got far at all. Go find me somewhere where you can successfully sue the government for not arresting someone.
And again: this is a case about Canada - so this has literally 0 relevance to the topic at hand.
> Cars are insecure on purpose because people accidentally lock their keys inside all the time
Can't remember the last time I've had a car that would let me lock the keys inside. Even the low tech ones won't let me lock the doors from inside the car unless the doors are closed. The slightly more advanced ones (which is most, these days) honk the horn when the keys are left inside the car, and unlock the doors.
Cars are insecure on purpose because people accidentally lock their keys inside all the time so locksmiths need to be able to get into them. Likewise, locks on homes are insecure on purpose because people lock themselves out. The entire system of locks is based on the assumption that crime is rare and criminals will pick the easiest targets. If crime ceases to be rare, it falls apart very quickly.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...