You keep repeating that.
You also think they ought to remain anonymous.
So, if they are in the right, their community will support them, right?
Do you really think that all that is required for community support is that you be in the right? Does your community support you?
Do you really think that if somebody is in the right the entire community -- every member -- will support him?
Does it follow that police should not need firearms, weapons of any kind, handcuffs, or any such thing? They should just say to the malefactor,"I consider there is probably cause to arrest you for [whatever]. Please be so good as to come with me." And, by your reasoning the officer, if he was right, would need no means to carry out his orders or to defend himself?
I guess you are also against the whole concept of a witness protection program? The witness is doing right, so no one would harm him or her or the family. So why do they need anonymity?
Why would we need laws at all? If you do right every one will applaud you, no one will harm you.
Somehow, I don't think that can be right.
And you think, do you, that when the legally elected representatives of the community delegate the enforcement of laws, the officers sould subsitute their own opinion for that of the elected representatives? If a community outlaws abortion, but an officer thinks a teenage child should have an abortion, he OUGHT to see that she gets one?
Or do you think officers of the law should follow their opinion, rather than that of the elected representatives of the community, only when their opinion agrees with yours.
I don't see how these opinions comport with the notion of representative government or criminal law.
The fault here lies with the people of the community who tolerate such nonsense in their school system.