It's not a reward. /u/thatsnotmynamesir details exactly why that's the policy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1s01lr/mos...

Sub-quote:

>Even then, the Administrative Leave isn't fun. The take your badge and gun and you are basically on house arrest between the hours of 8am and 5pm on weekdays. You cannot leave your home without permission of your superiors, even it its just to go down the street to the bank or grocery store. You must be available to come into the office immediately at any time for questioning, polygraphs, or anything else involved in the investigation. Drink a beer? That's consuming alcohol on duty, you're fired. So even when officers are cleared of the charges and put back on the street, Admin. Leave still isn't "paid vacation."

I encourage anyone to read the entire comment, as it explains much more about the process. Given that the review process can reasonably multiple to many weeks, it's not unreasonable for that time to be paid. If we're being honest, most people are not in a good enough financial position to pay 1 or 2 mortgage payments without any money coming in the door.

If it were unpaid time, why would I as a police officer want to volunteer to serve in the parts of town which are more rough?

If someone accused an officer of sexual harassment, the response would probably be the same - paid administrative leave. If 5 people came forward with completely untrue complaints against an officer sequentially, they could bankrupt the officer who literally did nothing wrong.

A regular person who commits a murder will be sent to jail, even if he is later exonerated. A cop goes home and continues to collect his income.

How is that not a reward?

For a regular person, the potential to need to kill somebody isn't part of their job duties. Of course there are very limited times where it's appropriate to do so.

> the potential to need to kill somebody isn't part of their job duties

This is true. However, I interpret it as yet another reason why police should be systemically held to a stricter standard for unjustified killings: they know they are far more likely to get away with it, so the process of investigation should be a deterrent in itself to counteract the low likelihood of punishment.

Think about this case for a second. The chief gave no information about whether the victim was carrying a weapon or threatened the officers. The victim was surrounded by cops and yet there is no immediate clarity about precisely what happened.

Cops are a fraternity, and they deal extensively with the justice system. There are systemic benefits that they enjoy due to this. Many cops have gotten away with murders that were documented on video, and witnessed by other cops.

To counter this, you have to construct parts of the system as a deterrent to killing nonthreatening people. That may make the job more dangerous, but it's better to put a trained officer in danger of being attacked, than to put an innocent and clueless civilian in danger of being gunned down by a careless SWAT team.

That is bullshit. The police do not have a "job duty" of killing someone. They are entitled to employ lethal force in self defense when their lives are in danger, which is exactly the same legal standard as for civilians.

Any time a cop shoots someone for any reason, they are automatically put on administrative leave. (This varies by department but it seems to be how it works in Wichita.) After the investigation, it will be determined whether they should be punished.

For the record, a regular American sent to jail will typically be afforded the opportunity to post bail and continue to conduct their life as an innocent person, pending the outcome of their trial.

Unless the regular American is from a low income household and can not afford bail. For example: Kalief Browder.

It's true that sometimes people can't make bail. Just a few quick notes about that.

1. Bail is refundable collateral. It's supposed to be priced within attainability, but it needs to be an amount sufficient to motivate compliance with the court. And when you're looking at criminal charges, that amount generally has to be quite significant, since compliance may result in incarceration or other seriously adverse outcomes. Also, bail will be set based upon the totality of the circumstances including the severity of the crime; the amounts you hear are frequently high because the crime must be serious and/or noteworthy to grab attention on the news.

2. There is a whole industry built up around helping people make bail. "I can't make bail" is not a novel problem and there is a lot of infrastructure in place to assist with this.

3. Excessive bail is not allowed and motions can be filed to get bail reduced.

4. No matter what, in every large system with rules that get enforced, there will be anomalies and anecdotes about the rules going awry. Isolated heart-wrenching stories of breakage should be addressed, but are not grounds for condemning the system as a whole.

Many humans manage to avoid alcohol consumption between 8am and 5pm on weekdays. Is this difficult for police? What could that imply about their sobriety when they're not on administrative leave?

I agree that you should keep being paid, but spending your work hours in your own home does seem unusually generous. Compare the "rubber rooms" teachers are sent to under very similar circumstances.

The punishment comes after the investigation, not before.

But only for cops. Shouldn't cops be treated like anyone else, which would normally mean being fired or maybe, if we are lucky, unpaid leave?

I think being put on paid leave during an investigation is not that uncommon. Especially in adversarial jobs where the people who bring complaints are more likely to be malicious, you don't want to give them the power to disrupt someone's paycheck without an investigation. Otherwise you'd have criminals getting entire police departments fired.

The comparison isn't what happens to someone's job when they're facing a complaint relating to that job, but what happens to their job when they're facing criminal charges. Garrity basically sounds like institutional corruption whereby the (administrative face of) the police to avoid asking questions that could help the (criminal-prosecuting face of) the police. At any other job, the internal investigation would demand answers to questions that would criminally implicate you (under pain of firing), and the police wouldn't agree to close their investigation due to the administrative inquiry beginning!

Also, these separate serial investigations seem like a powerful incentive to brush over the criminal inquiry as quick as possible - figuring wrongdoing can still be punished by the second investigation, and also not wanting to delay it.

Except the person "making the complaint" is a dead man that committed no crime, as the police chief established.

Livingston didn’t say if the man, who was 28, had a weapon when he came to the door, or what caused the officer to shoot the man. Even if you were innocent before the SWAT team showed up, threatening them afterwards will get you killed and no court is going to convict them. So far it is not "established" that the officer should not have shot the man.

It doesn't take more than a few minutes after the man was shot dead to know whether he had a weapon. Frankly, it doesn't matter why the officer shot the man so long as he hadn't threatened the officer. In the time it took me to write this comment, a clear determination of whether the officer abused his power could have been made. If he did in fact have a weapon, you could bet your ass the police chief would have confirmed that.

What exactly do you think this investigation is going to yield? "It looked like he may have had a weapon" or "He made a threatening comment"? Neither are reasons why the officer should have shot the man.

It took 6 months for a grand jury to exonerate another Wichita officer. http://www.texomashomepage.com/news/local-news/wichita-falls... The appeals etc took years after that. My point is, you don't let the cops make the determination about whether a cop is guilty. There are whole other layers of accountability.

Edit: and yeah I agree cops don't get convicted often enough. Either way a real investigation is going to take time.

A bit of a correction: that article is talking about Wichita Falls, which is in Texas. This swatting/shooting is Wichita, Kansas.

Did it occur in a state where being in possession of a weapon inside your home is a crime? And if they felt threatened, it should be up to a jury to determine if it was self defense or murder based on why they felt threatened.

Anyone (except cops) suspected of murder would be arrested and jailed... so actually it's worse than you say, for anyone that is not a cop.

And then they'd be arraigned within a few days (max -- often, within 24 hours) and given the opportunity to post bail.

Its best practice in HR for serious cases for those accused to be put on administrative leave prior to any investigation -just firing some one who then turns out to be innocent would lead to expensive lawsuits.

Though being put on house arrest and being treated as on duty whilst on leave is on dodgy grounds I am surprised the police unions haven't challenged this in court.

Is there any reasonable doubt that the officer abused his power? The officer shot a man with witnesses. There's no doubt that the officer killed an innocent man. The facts have been established that the officer had no cause to use that amount of force. That being the case, what reason is there to not put the officer in prison awaiting trial like any other person that committed murder?

Punishment? Surely your joking.

Paid administrative leave is the norm because that's how most union collective bargaining agreements are written.