<< One question I consider: is a cop that never violates anyone’s civil rights, but also does nothing when their coworkers do, considered a good cop? It is not

<< One question I consider: is a cop that never violates anyone’s civil rights, but also does nothing when their coworkers do, considered a good cop? It is not a bad question to ask. Lets do what lawyers do: change one fact and see how it affects the case at hand. Issue at hand is bad behavior of individuals in a group. Is individual guilty of actions committed by other individuals while being part of that group? I suppose it depends. Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their politicians? Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their sheriffs? Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their neighbors? Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their partners? Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their kids? I have problem with either of those despite seeing clearly what you are getting at. Starting from the bottom, I have a problem with 'sins of the father' justification all the way to the politician. I see an abstract reasoning that can take us to 'yes, inaction is a choice too', but is it in the same category? Does it even have the same weight? << There were even active coverups, Kentucky’s Attorney General went to great lengths to push the idea that the entire thing was perfectly legal! Chicago is not better. Some stories are heart-wrenching and, as I stated before, I would not be able to be a cop just based on those alone, but I personally think you are trying to spread sin way too thin, which, contrary to what you think you are doing, is only distributing accountability even further and alienate even those, who could reasonably agree with you otherwise. In very simple terms, if you are gonna define me as bad apple anyway by association only, I might as well stick to my tribe, where at least I will have some level of protection from the outside. And that, I think, is the true problem.