The argument must start with a premise that the "good" cop has clear knowledge. Of course the argument is easily broken if we are to assume the "snitch" is engaging in rumors. Taken at face value: the "good" cop has first hand, actual knowledge.
If the good cop has knoweledge and does nothing -then they have dishonored themselves twice: Once when they witnessed the act, and did nothing and then again when they chose to not inform their superiors.
I don't think we are really on opposite sides -just have a semantics issue.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: