I'm not particularly interested in detangling your pseudo-philosophical breakdown.

I doubt you are capable of "detangling" it in the first place. I always take this kind of comment as an indicator of someone who is out of his depth. If you had any actual philosophical depth to identify "pseudo-philosophy" (something you would need to identify fake philosophy in the first place), then you'd be able to do actual philosophy and contend with my post in a knock-down manner; which you clearly haven't done (and openly said you aren't even going to try). So this gives me pretty good evidence for doubting not just your philosophical knowledge, but also your ability to spot alleged "pseudo-philosophy" in the first place, thus undermining the force of your claim.

Additionally, there is more evidence to doubt your abilities: the concepts I'm using are common in ethics and meta-ethics (the attribution of values and what a principle is), metaphysics (the nature of persons and the attribution of properties), and logic (the breakdown of arguments to identify where they went wrong in their support and how they can do better). All these things are major philosophical topics. The problem is that you lack this knowledge, which I worked out from your original post (e.g. the confusion over what an assumption is, the inability to see what a re-constructed argument is, confusing counter-examples to claims with the original claims, mixing up general categories that are needed for principles). An experienced swimmer can spot someone who can't tread in deep water. This is why I tried to bait you into a satisfactory explanation for your bolded comment.

Lawyers are generally detested, because

This is not what I'm asking for as needing explaining (you need to explain how "the existing system coerces any well-intentioned people into performing amoral acts"). This is like a monkey screeching that there is a lion nearby. It's purely emotive signalling that has nothing to do with what I asked for and shows your motivations towards the issue.

Lawyers use their own set of amoral logical technicalities to ...

You're just re-stating the initial part of what Higgs is saying. There's no deeper explanation here. You've just shifted the initial conditions to lawyers and the law. You haven't even addressed the fundamental issue that I raised in my original post -- the jump from evaluative properties of laws to evaluative properties of cops -- and I doubt that you can or even want to, since you've tried to shift the latter part of Higgs' original claims about evaluative properties of cops to an argument about moral acts in the other post (these aren't the same thing; and again, you need some sort of moral principle to make that leap. Something you keep ignoring).

Also, I just noticed that you are using the term "amoral," while the OP picture is taking a clear stand on morality (good and bad). Amorality is the lack of morality (including badness). Higgs is clearly talking about morality and immorality. For a guy that seemed concerned at first with what others said about Higgs' claims (that you were wrong in your interpretation of), you sure don't seem to be concerned about the same behavior when you do it.

Here's a fairly cut and dry example ... This scenario ...

Examples and scenarios aren't explanations. They might exemplify, instantiate, or describe an issue; but again, you are not giving an explanation into the fundamental underlying components, organization, and causality that generates the large variety of examples or scenarios (including the one you've given). You're the one that made the generalized claim that, "the existing system coerces any well-intentioned people into performing amoral acts." Back it up with a generalized explanation that covers the system-level and its underlying mechanism, since that is what you originally implied was beyond dispute. Think real hard for a second why a normal person might take your example as "cut and dry" and how that may not be applied in a generalized moral sense to other parts of your systemic claim (protip: think about non-child examples and then compare both child and non-child examples. Why are they both bad?).

BTW, given that you keep being evasive with several issues, I'm done with this discussion.