I read the summary of the SC case you mentioned, and while I don't agree with the decision (Republican SC decided it in 2005), there is a lot more nuance to it than your post would have people believe. First, it was in response to the police not reacting quickly enough to a father (with an order of protection) kidnapping three kids. The father ended up killing the children, then showed up at a police station shooting and was killed by police then. It is a tragedy, but the opinion of the justices was based solely on the law and previous precedent. The prosecutors decided to try and argue that the children were property to get around a previous decision, and the police had a duty to protect property which didn't go over well in the case. The SC doesn't really look at the situation in order to resolve it, they are there to interpret the law as it's written. It could have certainly gone another way if it was argued differently.

The whole thing stinks, but it has nothing to do with a woman being raped and screaming from inside while the police ignored it. That's sensationalist bullshit.