The identification of hazards and opportunities varies among individuals, as well as among organizations and individuals. If individuals view hazards and opportunities differently from policing organizations, what are the implications of these differences for personal safety? The contrast between the individual-level versus organizational-level identification of hazard and opportunity and the implications of these differences are the focus of this paper. This paper uses the case of Jane Doe and her subsequent lawsuit against the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, for failing to warn the public of a rapist in Doe’s community. This case study provides an example of the disparities between the provision of information to the public, the organizational goals of crime control, and individual goals of personal safety. The paper addresses the issues related to the extent to which knowledge and choice combined with trust influence the management of hazards, with specific interest in the conflict that might emerge between the police and citizen in the latter’s access to and use of information in their day-to-day activities. The discussion focuses on two major aspects highlighted by the case study: (1) consideration of the significance of the differing constructions and definitions of hazards by organizations and individuals and (2) actuarial applications in practice.