
Quoting
cdwjava
You do understand that officers get terminated for non-criminal policy violations all the time, right? We all KNOW that at least manslaughter charges are pending - as does the agency. The agency does not have to wait for an indictment, a trial, or a conviction before they can act. It doesn't take a brilliant investigator to identify policy violations sufficient to justify a termination, and under the circumstances it is likely that Guyger sidestepped Garrity and declined to answer any questions even to the IA investigator which - by itself - could lead to termination.
The fact that she was let go for "adverse conduct" does not at all imply some new and improved criminal charges! In fact, since this is almost certainly a bifurcated investigation, the agency likely does not have any idea the status of the criminal investigation and any charges that might be recommended (other than any already pending).
I have overseen investigations that resulted in the termination of officers for what might be termed "adverse conduct" in instances where NO criminal charges were pending or even remotely justified. You're reading far too much into a simple statement by the department.