If you can't hold a company liable for the behavior of their employees, the company, in lieu of liability, could easily decide that it's too expensive to do things like background checks or training.

The legal concept here seems to be Respondeat Superior, which "holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency." [0]

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior

Police departments should be held strictly liable (or practically so) for conduct of officers under the color of authority. It's no different than holding a club responsible for a bouncer using excessive force. When your organization's basic business involves putting your employees in sensitive sorts of contact with the public, you're creating risk and misconduct is foreseeable.

Civil liability, unlike criminal liability, isn't about punishing those who did something wrong. Its about compensating wronged persons in a way that efficiently allocates incentives. Employers are usually the ones that can most efficiently exercise precaution to avoid abuse of authority by employees.

The police force has a tendency and history and many examples of putting their fellow officers in higher priority than their oath.

Frequently, without knowing what the crime is. Not wanting to be a rat. "If a cop said that what's happened, you back him up".

I don't know if that was the case here --- but it (protecting fellow officers from litigation, under the assumption that the officer wouldn't have done anything wrong, so we have to protect each other from those evil lawyers/citizens/etc) --- that happens so often, without knowing the crime ---- that happens so often that I personally find it plausible it happened here.

Very good chance it did not.

But still ... glad to see an investigation.

----

I find it unlikely anyone would intentionally protect a rapist. But intent doesn't matter. I find it likely the police force would unintentionally protect all sorts of crimes.

I think the fallacy in your argument is that you are separating this cop from the "police" when they are both one and the same. What is the "police force"? Isn't it just a group of individuals chartered for a specific set of activities and behaviors? If one individual in a group does wrong within the charter (i.e. uphold the law, serve and protect), cat you also say that the group as a whole has done wrong? I think the concept applies to lots of things. Tire center puts on wrong tires on your car and you get in an accident, they are liable. McDonalds undercooks your burger and your kid dies, they are liable. Police pull you over, and then you die, get injured, beaten, raped without just cause etc, they are liable.

The police force is not a monolithic entity; it is a collection of individual people. The actions of individual members are the actions of the force. Every officer, at least while on duty, represents the police force and acts on its behalf. Effectively, the police force raped her through the actions of one of its officers. That is why the force is liable. Further the force (it's other members and superiors) had a duty to make certain someone like that was not on the force, and in failing to do that, they are liable.