Lol, no. The relevant part, links below:
In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005'sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.
Original article:
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
Archive:
Will this case change these issues? I really don't believe it will. The (((MSM))) will cry "What about the children!?!?!" In truth, (((they))) only want Whites totally disarmed. These cases always have an odd way of making the (((democratic party, BLM, ADL,))) ect. scream for gun control laws. It's all (((they))) want. That is it, they don't care about you or the safety of your children, because you are White.
(No proof read)