`In response to “Please describe the first time you witnessed misconduct by another employee but took no action,” 46 percent (532) advised they had witnessed misconduct by another employee, but concealed what they knew.`
If we can trust the survey results, methodology, etc, the minority of which you speak is 46%.
I'm specifically making a distinction between the bad actors — people who commit an overtly abusive act — and the "thin blue line", which is cops who are aware of the abuses, but conceal or misrepresent what they've seen.
The 46% you cite numbers among the latter. For all you know, though, the people those 46% are talking about having seen committing "misconduct" are the same folks over and over.
I'm not downplaying police abuses, and I'm not excusing the people who don't speak up and call it out when it occurs, but I think it remains useful to make a distinction between them.
Part of the value of making the distinction, IMO, is that the "accomplices", as you call them, are probably an easier and more effective place to attack the problem. Get people who aren't bad actors to speak out about (or even against) the bad actors, and the latter will have to modify their behavior, or will leave the force one way or another.
One would need to know what the misconduct consisted of, in order to judge what this means. Is the misconduct accepting free coffee at the 7-11, or is it beating a prisoner?
This survey contradicts that assertion: http://www.aele.org/loscode2000.html
From the survey:
`In response to “Please describe the first time you witnessed misconduct by another employee but took no action,” 46 percent (532) advised they had witnessed misconduct by another employee, but concealed what they knew.`
If we can trust the survey results, methodology, etc, the minority of which you speak is 46%.