Interesting thing to think about, complaints of police brutality don't drop in areas where police are required to wear cameras showing everything they do. Cases of actual police brutality drop significantly in those area's though.
The only cops that abuse their power are the ones that are corrupt. There is "more" of it because the corrupt officers are abusing their power more frequently and people are filming it. NOT ALL COPS ARE CORRUPT THOUGH. It makes me mad when people blame all cops for the actions of a few.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
The corrupt few can only be so because the others let it happen. A.C.A.B.
The non-corrupt officers don't let it happen on purpose. They could be blackmailed into keeping quiet, they don't know it's happening, or they are corrupt as well.
They are corrupt if they know about it but don't do anything, unless they are being blackmailed into keeping quiet. If they don't know at all, they are not corrupt and shouldn't be blamed for not stopping something they didn't know was even happening.
If they can be blackmailed, they must also be corrupt. How could no other police know about the corruption? Law enforcement is supposed to have massive oversight to prevent that; the only options this leaves are corruption or incompetence.
They aren't necessarily corrupt like those who are if they're being blackmailed. They could just have an embarrassing past that they don't want to be made of for. Corrupt officers could also threaten to hurt them (but usually a weak member of their family) if they don't stay quiet if they don't have anything. Other officers might not know about it because corrupt officers could easily cover it up if they have the ability or the corrupt officer could've been an amazing officer in the past resulting in another corrupt officer (who could only be corrupt for helping) covering it up to keep a good image. There are multiple possibilities that could result in nothing being done. Yes, the whole department could be corrupt or they, or at least most, could just be incompetent shitheads that need to be replaced. Those are not the only options though. To be honest, I'm starting to think that you only hear/read what is covered the most in the media and not the good things that are rarely shown.
The police are supposed to be enforce the law, if embarrassment or intimidation are enough to stop them doing their job, then they are not fit for the job. Yes, there are multiple options that could result in nothing being done, all of which require further corruption and/or incompetence. Assuming I am biased is just poor argument, I do not ignore the good, I just expect it to be standard. I am simply unwilling to let the bad go ignored and unpunished. If the police cannot bring the corrupt to justice then they are not fit for purpose.
I'm sorry for assuming you're biased, but please understand that when I engage in a conversation where one person only expresses their thoughts on one side of the topic, I automatically assume things. I agree, if it's enough to stop them then they aren't fit for the job. Which is why, in some cases, they resign and possibly move. I partially agree with your last sentence, however, I think the corrupt officers and those who knew and did nothing should be the only ones to get punished. Those who are not incompetent and, for any perfectly logical reason, didn't know should be left unpunished. There is always the possibility that another officer could've become suspicious and tried to do something about it but got unlawfully suspended, resulting in others not knowing who to report it to and the corrupted to continue.
The corrupt few can only be so because the others let it happen. A.C.A.B.
Want a chance to rephrase that?