> Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise.
> Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal.
The first implication is reasonable. It also assumes facts not in evidence, however I will say this: I do understand that covering up a crime is criminal in places where I am familiar with the law. I am not familiar with laws everywhere. I will also say this: a cop covering up a crime of another cop is bad, thus that person would be considered a bad cop. I think we can both agree on that last statement.
The second implication is a bad take. That assumes that all cops are covering up crimes. I posit that not every cop has done that, but an unknown percentage somewhere better 0 and 100, have.
> I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value.
Based on your second implication, I believe that statement to be incorrect.
> What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing.
I would say that is more applicable to you.
> You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier.
Please reread the HN Guidelines.
> policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice
I am open to agreeing with this, because some percentage greater than 0 but less than 100, is.
> Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice.
Again, no, please stop. Somewhere your thought process is broken. You do not appear to have a strong concept of causal relationships.
It is impossible to have a reasonable argument with a person who cannot reason, therefore I will not continue this discussion with you (with someone else, sure).