Just because you might be able to get away with calling someone a "pedophile" (when they're possibly an ephebophile); because you can label a 17-year-old a "child" (instead of just stating the simple facts that he/she is underage and the target of statutory rape); even though you have no fear of legal prosecution for jazzing it up to something more inflammatory... Why would you? Why use words that aren't accurate?
Don't get me wrong. I get it. This cop was and is a total scumbag. And yet, somehow, Mike's fine, passionate article was able to get that reality across without the writer making up lies, fudging facts or creatively reinventing common terms. Officer Beavers did enough horrible shit that there's no reason to stack the deck with extra crimes. I often see people stretching their case using misleading language, and then scoffing / laughing it off when called on their misrepresentations. It taints our cause (if our cause is justice, fairness and police accountability, instead of some junior Nancy Grace desire to jail everybody).
This casual disrespect for the terms you employ makes you sound irrational. It's the rhetoric equivalent of ALL CAPS or screaming at passersby. And like all rhetorical shortcuts, its use eventually spreads throughout the population and becomes modern English.
Getting back to the OP: I don't care what happens to the cop and his unnamed buddies - they deserve to fall hard instead of being rewarded with a blind eye or golden parachute. I do care about language. It’s about the next teenager prosecuted for sexting, forced onto a lifelong sex offender list... all because your words have ceased to mean what they pretend to mean.
I have no doubt that most of the people who repeat that quote haven't got a clue where it came from. But Ferenstein's dumb thesis ("it's pretty clearly about money") is based on a complete twisting of the historical context to support a literal-minded gotcha piece. Benjamin Franklin was advancing a narrower point with regard to freedom, true. That doesn't make the wider principle invalid. And it's not.
Since both articles are all about Walter's real life claims, you are either missing the point entirely, or you have a vested interest in one of his business ventures. I don't know how often or how many different ways it needs to be repeated: No one cares about the show's realism or lack thereof. Really.
You (and all-caps guy, upthread) are on the wrong track, arguing with the straw ghosts of your imagination.