The practice sounds a bit counter intuitive (to me) and I'd like to know if there is a logic behind it and what that logic is.
I understand paying for their services. What I don't understand is paying when they are acting outside the law (as in murder, rape, torture, illegal detention. Things that are illegal for both civilians and police officers)
The way I see it (from my narrow point of view) is like paying (money) for a dangerous job like cutting a tree. If the guy drops branches on my house and damages it, he (or his insurance) will be paying for the damages not me, no matter how dangerous the job is.
To clarify what I mean by "paying for police officers' transgressions", it's money paid by the government (from people's budget) in case of a successful lawsuit if an officer has mistreated (illegally) a civilian.
I am not trying to have a debate about whether the police officers are or are not guilty in certain cases. I am asking about the few cases where they are clearly breaking the laws and their own department's code of conduct. Cases where courts and juries find them guilty.
I don't know why I get answers about how cops are right and their victims are wrong, or how cops have the right to be wrong. The question is strictly about the source of the payment made to the victims