That opinion is of special interest to critics of qualified immunity—which in many cases has protected police officers from liability for shocking behavior—because it was written by 7th Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is reportedly the leading contender to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. In addition to supporting legislation that would limit or abolish qualified immunity, its critics hope the Supreme Court will reconsider the doctrine in an appropriate case. While the 7th Circuit’s decision in Rainsberger v. Benner does not reveal how Barrett would vote in such a case, it does suggest she is not the sort of judge who bends over backward to protect police officers accused of outrageous misconduct.
I believe currently, a judge must determine if qualified immunity is waved. Since there are so many corrupt judges, I would like to see some sort of overhaul. Of course the police must be protected from people who sue everyone, but at the same time, the public must feel secure in the civil rights being protected.
I would point out, that most of us would be disgusted if a police officer would not allow a black man into a public area, because he was black. This is clearly a violation of his rights. Yet, too many times we look the other way, or make excuses, when it comes to the 1st and the 4th.
And another one
https://www.newsweek.com/maryland-man-sentenced-year-jail-throwing-two-parties-amid-pandemic-1534415
“Officers tried to reason with Myers and obtain his cooperation to no avail,” the statement added. Myers was arrested that evening.
This is brainwashing 101. Who exactly is being unreasonable?