I am fine with police not being able to be fired until found guilty. I personally think it should be that way everywhere for everyone. For instance, the cases of a student being ejected from a university due to unsubstantiated rape claims that never hit court because there's nothing to prosecute with.
Now, whether they are active officers is a completely different matter, and they should not be permitted to active duty until pending cases are resolved.
Finally, settlements are not a legal judgement of guilt nor acquittal. The only thing that can decide that is a court case. Often, they are a pure risk vs reward decision. If the downside of losing a case is $50+ million and they estimate their chances of losing at equal to or more than 5% -- in other words, still very confident of winning -- then it makes financial sense to settle for $2 million instead.
> I am fine with police not being able to be fired until found guilty.
I don't understand this at all. There are all sorts of terrible things that are not quite illegal. You killed that drunk guy that took a swing at you? Not guilty, but still not good behavior. You were a real jerk to a bunch of citizens, but you didn't actually assault them? Not guilty, but still not good behavior.
On the other hand, "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the cornerstones of modern society.
If an accusation can lose you your job, I can probably dodge my next speeding ticket by threatening to make a false accusation against them. Obviously, this isn't what we're looking for.
But at the other end of the scale, if you're put behind a desk for something that'd have you or I sat in cells awaiting trial, this isn't what we're looking for either.
If the officer did not do anything illegal, then what right do we (as a society) have to fire them? Are they somehow supposed to be more "moral" (for some definition thereof) than the rest of the populace? Because there won't be anything but disappointment with that attitude. There's no reason to romanticize cops as somehow being better than every other person in their society.
Also, these statements are purely as applies to pending court cases, because cops sometimes do have to do things that would otherwise be illegal for anyone else. And it can take a court case to decide if one particular occasion met those necessary criteria. However, if it's deemed that a cop is not meeting some other performance criteria of their job, then that's a different matter altogether.
There are 2 different issues here, whether or not an action constitutes a crime and burden of proof.
We might agree on the first issue.
>However, if it's deemed that a cop is not meeting some other performance criteria of their job, then that's a different matter altogether.
Would you consider a police officer unnecessarily killing a violent drunk to be "not meeting some other performance criteria"?
On the issue of burned of proof we disagree. Employment is a voluntary agreement. If I am your employer and I no longer want to employ you because I am convinced you are a criminal, then that is my call. If I want to lock you in a cage because I am convinced you are a criminal, that is not my call.
I don't know anyone who got fired who actually committed a crime leading to their firing. Well, one guy. He got a starring role in the SEC's annual report that year.
Needless hands-on with a person who poses no danger should be a swift firing.
Now, whether they are active officers is a completely different matter, and they should not be permitted to active duty until pending cases are resolved.
Finally, settlements are not a legal judgement of guilt nor acquittal. The only thing that can decide that is a court case. Often, they are a pure risk vs reward decision. If the downside of losing a case is $50+ million and they estimate their chances of losing at equal to or more than 5% -- in other words, still very confident of winning -- then it makes financial sense to settle for $2 million instead.