united-states police witnesses
Is it legal for police to deny protection to an informant despite a known threat?
<p>So, the second season of Daredevil came out today, and internet lowlife that I am I'm already a few episodes in.</p>

<p>A pivotal part of the plot involves a criminal who police are well aware would almost certainly be killed (by a maniac they're currently investigating), who is willing to testify against plenty of people to qualify for witness protection. However, they make his witness protection status conditional upon wearing a wire and being directly involved in a sting, which would expose him to further personal bodily risk.</p>

<p>Since that amounts to extortion, it doesn't <strong>feel</strong> like it <strong>should</strong>  be legal to do. They're forcing someone to put themselves in harm's way under threat of (almost certain) execution by a third party.</p>

<p>...However, I know that, for various reasons, the law often violently conflicts with what's ethically justifiable, so I'm curious whether that's actually something police can do.</p>

<p>Can police make their protection dependent upon direct involvement in a sting operation?
I recognize that there's a difference between witness protection and regular police protection, and am curious how the above applies in each case. Within the context of the show, it's implied that <strong>both</strong> witness protection <strong>and</strong> regular police protection would be denied if the witness were to decline to participate. In case it's relevant, the show takes place in New York state.</p>

<p>And yes, I know that TV represents law inaccurately all the time. Don't worry; this isn't the first of a long list of TV-related questions. In my defense, when this question occurred to me, it really <strong>was</strong> Friday in Iceland.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0" rel="noreferrer">Police have no duty to protect</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It seems from a quick reading of the article that Colorado law had tried to create such a duty, but SCOTUS decided that it either didn't, or couldn't.</p>
