US Supreme Court made numerous rulings that police does not have a duty to protect individuals. This effectively leaves nobody US residents to rely on for protection except themselves.
However, these rulings made a few exceptions; in particular, state is still liable for putting residents in worse position than before the police involvement. The cases where police was deemed liable included a cop confiscating a woman's car in the middle of high crime neighbourhood where she got raped, a cop who prevented a person from retrieving his closes from the car causing him to freeze to death on the walk home, a cop who notified an unstable teen of a complain by the neighbour that led the teen to slaughter the neighbours family, things like that.
Even though the State would not liable if a cop was passively watching somebody being assaulted right in front of him, in a case where a cop would place the victim against his will in the position to be assaulted that would make the State liable.
This leads to a question: is State liable for the victims who were unable to protect themselves because State actively prevented them from the opportunity to do so? For example, if a particular state has strict gun control laws that prevent individuals from carrying weapons for self-defence, and an individual gets assaulted because of that, would that State be liable for the offence because the gun control law by said legislature put the individual in worse position regarding self-defence than he was before the law was enacted?