this Court is not to diminish a legislatively intended immunity by inventive judicial interpretation. But this Court also does not function to expand an immunity beyond that intended by the Legislature, to expand it to a point that conflicts with legislative intention as determined by our previously well-settled rules of construction. We do not intend to become, and in the past we have not been, advocates of compensation for injured parties in conflict with the legislative will. We have sustained the legislative immunities in the most tragic settings. See Levin v. County of Salem, 133 N.J. 35, 626 A.2d 1091 (1993) (finding no government liability where man dove from county bridge into shallow tidal waters, suffering paralyzing injury); Manna v. State, 129 N.J. 341, 609 A.2d 757 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Weiss, supra, 128 N.J. 376, 608 A.2d 254
holding that police officers are entitled to conduct an investigatory stop of a motorist if they have reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed a traffic violation holding state immune from suit brought in state court holding public entity immune when both drivers could plainly see that traffic light was not functioning holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver holding public entity immune where motorist killed in accident on a bridge slippery from rain