protect and serve? surely you must be joking, especially in places like new jersey;

As TFTP has reported, the only case establishing that police have a duty to protect individuals states that those individuals must be under the direct responsibility of police at that time. Otherwise, as was established in both Warren v. District of Columbia and Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins — "government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

In the single case in which police are required to be responsible, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the court held that no duty arose as a result of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.

A New Jersey man has recently learned that even if you work with police to help them out on cases, putting yourself directly in danger, they have no duty to protect you. New Jersey police recruited a man to wear a wire and go undercover for officers to help them solve a case. While this man fulfilled his side of the agreement to help the Lawerence Police Department, after he finished — and was in real danger as a result — police refused to protect him.

After helping police, the man, only identified by his initials, according to NJ.com, "was beat up twice, shot at once and moved residences before finally arming himself in case his attackers accosted him again."...........more.........