01-11-2018, 12:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2018, 02:48 PM by FaceInTheCrowd.)
This is a hopelessly circular argument, because the people you are arguing with are applying a narrow definition of "corrupt" that requires a person's motivation to be personal self-interest. Using that definition, they will never consider Nick "corrupt" unless you can provide instances in which Nick solicited or accepted bribes, extorted money, stole property, sold drugs or committed some other violation of law to advance his career or otherwise improve his own personal status.
As long as Nick's actions were motivated only by his intent to save lives or uncover truth about a case, you would do better to address the question of whether Nick's behavior makes him a "cowboy cop" or a "loose cannon," and on that basis you can argue that he should have been tossed off the force even if what he did was only a violation of procedure and not necessarily a crime. The real world provides many instances of cops who use excessive force or appear to participate in manufacturing evidence of guilt or concealing exculpatory evidence yet never suffer any consequences beyond reprimand or firing.
As long as Nick's actions were motivated only by his intent to save lives or uncover truth about a case, you would do better to address the question of whether Nick's behavior makes him a "cowboy cop" or a "loose cannon," and on that basis you can argue that he should have been tossed off the force even if what he did was only a violation of procedure and not necessarily a crime. The real world provides many instances of cops who use excessive force or appear to participate in manufacturing evidence of guilt or concealing exculpatory evidence yet never suffer any consequences beyond reprimand or firing.