Both Paul’s thanks!
My question was to do with the wording of the statement quoted in the OP that says constitutional due process. Seems like if it were an arbitration issue or if it were a problem of faulty training of the officer that’d be the reason cited.
I guess I was asking in an unclear way of that statement was muddying the waters?
Even if a person has an arbitrated settlement, a pre-approved process agreed upon between employer and union for settling such things, or isn’t liable due to faulty training, would it be accurate to say they’re restored to their position due to lack of constitutional due process?
I don't know. I chalked that up to clumsy wording by the media, but there may be something to it that I am not aware of.
