Other than Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

One of the earliest cases of Public Duty doctrine was South v. Maryland (1865), in which the Supreme Court upheld the decision that Police Officers did not have a duty to protect an individual from harm unless they had a special relationship with that individual.

Another case is Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), In separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints. 

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs. (1989), the Supreme Court held that social workers did not have a duty to protect a child from harm by his father, even though they had been aware of the father’s abusive behavior. This was legal precedent which applied to government agents/workers (e.g. social workers, etc).

Other than Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

One of the earliest cases of Public Duty doctrine was South v. Maryland (1865), in which the Supreme Court upheld the decision that Police Officers did not have a duty to protect an individual from harm unless they had a special relationship with that individual.

Another case is Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), In separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints. 

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs. (1989), the Supreme Court held that social workers did not have a duty to protect a child from harm by his father, even though they had been aware of the father’s abusive behavior. This was legal precedent which applied to government agents/workers (e.g. social workers, etc).

All of that is true, but the #1 reason you don't rely on the gov't for protection is THEY CAN NOT PROTECT YOU.

Even if they had a legal duty to protect, they just don't have the resources.  Nor can they be everywhere at once when the bad things happen.

The saying goes, "YOU are your own first responder."  Either you are prepared and capable of providing protection, emergency medical aid, and fire fighting & rescue services on your own, or you better hope you never have to.

Even if the gov't had a legal duty, the bad thing has already happened.  All you -- or your next of kin -- can do is sue for negligence and failure to provide protection.  At that point, you're either dead, severely injured or a rape victim.  No amount of tax money in your bank account will make up for that.

This is a good academic discussion, but in reality, there's no such thing as government protection unless you're a governor, president, one of their family members, etc.  if you don't have gov't-funded bodyguards 24/7/365, then you don't have gov't protection. 

Period.

All of that is true, but the #1 reason you don't rely on the gov't for protection is THEY CAN NOT PROTECT YOU.

Even if they had a legal duty to protect, they just don't have the resources.  Nor can they be everywhere at once when the bad things happen.

The saying goes, "YOU are your own first responder."  Either you are prepared and capable of providing protection, emergency medical aid, and fire fighting & rescue services on your own, or you better hope you never have to.

Even if the gov't had a legal duty, the bad thing has already happened.  All you -- or your next of kin -- can do is sue for negligence and failure to provide protection.  At that point, you're either dead, severely injured or a rape victim.  No amount of tax money in your bank account will make up for that.

This is a good academic discussion, but in reality, there's no such thing as government protection unless you're a governor, president, one of their family members, etc.  if you don't have gov't-funded bodyguards 24/7/365, then you don't have gov't protection. 

Period.

I do agree that everyone is responsible for their own wellbeing, health & safety. And it makes sense to me that no body of government/ military, any type of law enforcement or first responder has an obligation of duty towards me. 

And adding to your point in the case Freitas v. City and County of Honolulu  574 P.2d 529 (1978)

Three brothers seek to recover damages from the City and County of Honolulu (City) and two police officers for injuries suffered from the shooting of the plaintiffs by a fourth brother. 
It an after the fact case of, damages & injuries caused by a family member terrorizing another family member. And the claim that police didn't do enough to stop the shootout from happening.

For the court case of Namauu v. City and County of Honolulu 614 P.2d 943 (1980)

Apellants brough an action against Randall C. Nakea, the State of Hawaii, the City and County of Honolulu, the County of Hawaii and named and unnamed individuals. Appellants alleged in their complaint that Randall C. Nakea sexually attacked and shot and killed their decedent, Junedale Namauu on October 10, 1974. They further alleged that the police departments of the two counties were negligent in failing to apprehend Nakea who had left the out-patient program to which he had been assigned by the State Hospital.

In both the above cases, people had to sue after-the-fact to get some form of justice.

I'm sure there are more cases like what you mentioned, where people sue government bodies or agencies for negligence or failure for... aid, assistance, protection, any acts which may make a situation worse, etc.

Unbelievable