I'm going to guess that you on right on this. The officers are being charged so that the prosecution can threaten them with lengthy sentences. They fired the officers instead of putting them on leave, and most likely their lawyers told them to invoke their 5th Amendment rights. Now, the only way they can induce testimony is to threaten them. Again, just guessing, but had they not been fired they would have willingly cooperated in giving testimony.
Well, yeah.
If they had been suspended, they would have been contacted by IA, as you have mentioned in the past. As an employee, you’re supposed to cooperate, which is basically immediately relevant information. How many rounds fired, and in what direction? In this case, there’s zero immediately relevant information, so they would have moved to a legalistic response.
Which sounds like this: “I need to contact my union rep and my lawyer. And when are you going to issue me a new pistol?” I suspect that the reason for firing them immediately, without an investigation was to deny them union representation and city paid defense.
Strange to post about unions on FR, but NO ONE is looking out for the individual patrol officer other than his fellow officers. All the ills of society are laid at his feet, and when things go wrong, which they will, the guy who drew the short straw is hung out to dry.