and voluntary exposure to the danger). This Court has recognized "the harsh reality that crime can and does occur despite society’s best efforts to prevent it.” Moye v. A.G. Gaston Motels, Inc., 499 So.2d 1368, 1372 (Ala.1986). It is the police officer's courage and sense of duty that society depends on for protection against violent criminals. The debt society owes its law enforcement officers, however, is not responsibly laid on property owners, by this Court's invention of a new tort action. We also note that other jurisdictions have addressed this issue and have concluded that a premises owner cannot be held liable for injuries sustained by a police officer when the officer is acting in the line of duty. See, e.g., Lenthall v. Maxwell, 138 Cal.App.3d 716, 188 Cal.Rptr. 260 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Fancil v. Q.S.E. Foods, Inc., 60 Ill.2d 552,
holding premises owner had no duty to protect when the risk the police officer was subjected to was one inherent in that occupation holding that premises owner was not liable to invitee who was shot by third party where special circumstances did not exist holding police officer who was shot by occupier of premises could not recover from premises owner for injuries the officer should have reasonably expected to sustain while engaged in the line of duty holding that the defendant who owned the premises could discharge its duty by either warning the plaintiff or making the premises reasonably safe holding officer who was shot by employee of a hotel while he was attempting to make an arrest was unable to recover for injuries from hotel owner