Given the frequency with which they’ve been calling fire trucks and EMT’s, I am wondering if this is some concerted operation of malicious compliance. I think the cost of all these calls has to be adding up.

These cops hate this detail. You can feel the resentment radiating from them. Hell, they can’t even muster up the courtesy to flirt or be nice to the hot girls coming out of the women-only yoga studio by my office. I’ve noticed that they also block traffic whenever they have an excuse to do it.

I believe the reason why the cop acted can be answered within your rhetorical question: protecting and serving whom? I believe the answer is the cop was more concerned with protecting himself and serving the interests of the city (or county, whichever the case may be) than the interests of Betty. I think the cop was more than likely concerned about being held liable if he “didn’t follow procedure” in the event Betty brought some sort of lawsuit.

Perhaps this concern could have been alleviated if there was a policy to where an individual could sign a waiver stating s/he explicitly did not want the EMT, fire truck, etc. Without such a remedy, It’s hard for me to be too critical of the cop in this particular case. Another good argument for tort reform and IMO we should move to a “loser pays” system like the rest of the industrial world.