With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (en banc) (observing that a special relationship may arise if "an individual assists law enforcement officials in the performance of their duties" or “where the police affirmatively engage the assistance of a particular individual and then fail to protect him”) (citations omitted). 5 . The court relied on, respectively, Florence v. Goldberg, 44 N.Y.2d 189, 404 N.Y.S.2d 583, 375 N.E.2d 763 (1978); McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles, 70 Cal.2d 252, 74 Cal.Rptr. 389, 449 P.2d 453 (1969) (en banc); Johnson v. State, 69 Cal.2d 782, 73 Cal.Rptr. 240, 447 P.2d 352 (1968) (en banc); Gardner v. Village of Chicago Ridge, 71 Ill.App.2d 373, 219 N.E.2d 147 (1966); and Schuster v. City of New York, 5 N.Y.2d 75, 180 N.Y.S.2d 265, 154 N.E.2d 534 (1958). 6 . See also Hines, supra, 580 A.2d at 137-38 (<HOLDING>); cf. Wanzer, supra, 580 A.2d at 131-32

A: holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction
B: holding that the victim impact and victim vulnerability aggravators were not overbroad and explaining that though the concepts of victim impact and victim vulnerability may well be relevant in every case evidence of victim vulnerability and victim impact in a particular case is inherently individualized
C: holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk
D: holding that emergency medical technicians conduct in undertaking assistance of victim did not elevate risk of harm to victim over other community members
D.