Local radio talk show did an episode wherein coppers called in (anon, of course) and answered questions. A telling ?? was: "how many fellow coppers should not be?" The consensus of the dozen or so that participated was 10%.
So, in the opinion of your fellows, 10% of ya'all ought to go pursue another job.
Not saying that 10% are corrupt. Or, 10% are overall worthless (e.g., a quota hire). Just, This is not a good fit for you. For all our sakes, move on along.

As to those that think (without any reason) that coppers are obligated to come when called and protect you, NO, they are not. Regardless of any motto or charter, there is no legal obligation in the US that they protect. This is one of the fundamental reasons why gun owners keep telling others to get armed. Learn how to use. Teach your kids "HANDS OFF!". Hundreds of times/year a person with a gun mitigates an attack -- or simply runs the Ahole off.

Somewhat a Sword of Damocles. I was thinking of the "To Protect and Serve" slogan before I went to comments. Given all the corrupt crooked police convictions and protected criminal enterprises know and the unknown, it is extremely hard on the honest ones especially when having the guidelines of the fraternity of police organizations and some having to look the other way.

It would seem "To Protect you from yourself and Serve you warrants for your arrest can be attributed to get tough crime bills including Clinton's Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act ~ 2 years after Rodney King ~ which by the way, the US Senate version was by Joe Biden. Bill Clinton was going to put a policeman on every corner. The feds paid for it for a few years, then after Bubba Bill was re-elected it was left to the local governments to raise taxes to pay for them.

According to the Wiki entry: "During the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton sought to reposition the Democratic Party, which had previously been attacked as "soft on crime," as an advocate for "get-tough" policing strategies as well as investing in community policing. Federal funding for additional police and community policing were both priorities of the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Clinton was a member. In an announcement that the New York Times described as "a page from the Republican playbook," Clinton said on July 23,1992:

"We cannot take our country back until we take our neighborhoods back. Four years ago this crime issue was used to divide America. I want to use it to unite America. I want to be tough on crime and good for civil rights. You can't have civil justice without order and safety."

Lots of places have various testing procedures for police hiring, including basic fundamentals like reading, writing, agility tests, and so on. Many have psychological tests and extensive interviews and evaluations. An attack on one is an attack on all. If one is bad, THEY ALL have the potential to be just as bad.

Seems to me that the Democrats are back to their old shenanigans of lax on crime enforcement to achieve a power vacuum and totalitarian control of all, while complaining vociferously about that control. Plenty of dismissed charges against violent perpetrators of Antifa, BLM, CHAZ, all around the country courtrooms.....scofflaws and enabling miscreant reprehensible behavior is another indicator, not to mention the southern border. If you allow people entry by breaking your own laws, what makes you think they will be law abiding on your other laws?

I suppose the premise that the police have no duty to protect you is so ridiculous by intention, to promote the idea that if you believe that, you must believe they are only there to control you.

If serious, it is an attempt to frighten you. But consider that almost every American police department has the motto and mission: "To Protect and to Serve." Do you think they spent millions on such literature and logos and training of officers by that ethic, with some other mission in mind? Kinda stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point doesn't it?

They're big on collecting their pensions.