> It isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Gosh, that sounds awful (both the actions of the police, and the decision of the judge). This failure to hold the police to a high standard is what brings about these situations.

What do you think the police should have done differently in this particular situation (it's an interesting thought exercise)?

Also, if you haven't done it, there's a really sobering mental exercise that you might want to try.

Median police response times in the United States are about ten minutes for violent crimes. 90th percentile is something like an hour.

Don't know the breakdowns beyond that, but I would also imagine that there's a sharp wealth divide in response times.

Imagine that a bunch of large, angry men are trying to break into your home to kill you. Set a timer for ten minutes. Wait. As you do, imagine what's happening, for those ten minutes, because that's how long it will take for police to arrive.

Regarding what the police should have done, I think the Wikipedia article is quite clear:

> 'a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1."'

> ' This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers. '

The dispatchers failed twice to notify correctly about the situation.

> Also, if you haven't done it, there's a really sobering mental exercise that you might want to try.

I'm not sure what your point is here. For what it's worth, given where I live I don't see how they could break in less than ten minutes (with a key I guess?), and without alerting neighbors in at least 5 adjacent units, who I could ask for help through the window.