Re: item 1, Baltimore is the birthplace of the "Stop Snitchin'" movement, a heavily distributed and well marketed street campaign defining a dynamic that a wiki entry can't possibly describe accurately. The bigger point is that it had a counter-campaign on the police side which retaliated against it, and that thinking got ingrained in the troops. In other words, officers stick together and no policy change will realistically affect that.
After the Baltimore riots, there was a change on the police side - cultural change, not policy or regulation based one. As a result, homicide rate shot up through the roof and appears to be rising year after year. This behavior is a defensive mechanism and so incredibly tribal - not something you can set through policy, short of replacing 3,000 cops.
To that point, most of Baltimore PD cops DO NOT live in Baltimore. They travel to work from outside. In other words, despite having 3,000 job positions in the city, they couldn't fill them locally so they expanded outward, allowing officers to take cruisers home as a commuting incentive. Think about evaluating that factor - would you want to employ cops who live in your neighborhood, or ones from a neighboring town? Would there be a difference? Then think what would happen if you didn't have a choice.
Re: item 2, you're describing lex talionis, which we as a society abandoned centuries ago. You can't practice treating crimes differently based on who the person is, even if they're cops.
In Baltimore, there are 3,000 cops for 600,000 citizens. Median cop salary is $50k and it's a dangerous and difficult job. Tons of them turn to overtime work to make ends meet and are drained of energy (look up Baltimore Sun overtime database if curious). Meanwhile, the vast poor citizens there have a median income of $30k. That's an indicator of why people turn to crime and its volume. Living in the city is prohibitively expensive (sweet mercy, the property taxes are terrifying - it's no incentive to buy a house there.)
It's really messy.