As a general principal, there is no logical or moral reason why a victim should be beyond blame. The goal should be to judge the situation fairly; just as much as you don't want to automatically blame the victim, neither should you automatically find the victim blameless.
Just so we're clear, I'm not blaming a "random" Google employee, as you are suggesting. I don't want to downplay this tragedy, and I wouldn't say that anyone deserved it. It's horrible that you had to witness what happened, and I'm sorry to hear it.
We consider crimes against young children to be particularly bad precisely because they're genuinely blameless.
Once you get past childhood, though, you're a moral agent making choices. If you work at a company, yeah, you are in a small part contributing to their actions and by continuing to work there, assenting to those actions.
After all, a random Googler lunching in the cafeteria wants the prestige associated with all the good things Google does, that's got to come with some measure of blame for the bad things Google does. You can't have it both ways.
So, wanting to work at a reputed place for software engineering == endorsing every single policy the company (a collection of over 70K individuals) might adopt? To the point that you should be expected to take a bullet for it?
