Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
went on to state: We do not want to pretend that the line between action and inaction, between inflicting and failing to prevent the infliction of harm, is clearer than it is. If the state puts a man in a position of danger from private persons and then fails to protect him, it will not be heard to say that its role was merely passive; it is as much an active tortfeasor as if it had thrown him into a snake pit. Id. at 618-619; see also Archie v. City of Racine, 847 F.2d 1211, 1221 (7th Cir.1988) (“When the state puts a person in danger, the Due Process Clause requires the state to protect him to the extent of ameliorating the incremental risk. When a state cuts off sources of private aid, it must provide replacement protection.”); White v. Rochford, 592 F.2d 381, 382 (7th Cir.1979) . Bowers, which hinted at the analysis that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that police officers charge to protect the public differentiated them from the public
B. holding that wisconsin violated equal protection rights of handicapped children by denying them an education at public expense
C. holding a county police civil service board violated officers due process rights by failing to follow its own procedures in their termination proceedings
D. holding inmates in segregation unit without charges being filed against them and without informing them of reasons for such confinement violated inmates due process rights
E. holding that due process clause was violated where police officers  abandoned children and left them in a healthendangering situation  after having arrested their custodian and thereby deprived them of adult protection
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.