They do. Vance v. Harlow.
Lol! Doodledawg can’t even quote the right case. Folks, she a leftist agitator. She’s not a lawyer. She lies and pretends to be one, but she reveals time and time again that she has absolutely zero understanding of what the law actually says.
The actual case is Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). Doodledawg is repeating the classic leftist talking point of confusing qualified immunity with absolute immunity. Once again, QUALIFIED IMMUNITY is not ABSOLUTE immunity. Qualified immunity does not apply to gross negligence, recklessness or a knowing violation of a clearly established right.
Here is an example of a case filed against officers of the Capitol Police who were denied qualified immunity for infringing on 1st Amendment rights during a protest at the Capitol:
“In sum, the record is clear that the plaintiff was not causing any disturbance, that he held a sign up like twelve other persons, but that he alone was arrested because the police viewed his sign as being in conflict with the spirit of the ceremony. The other persons who were holding signs containing messages not in conflict with the spirit of the ceremony were not arrested. It is clear then that the only basis for the arrest was that the plaintiff was singled out for the content of his expression. It is undisputed that had his sign been the same as the twelve other persons also holding signs, he would not have been arrested. The record is also clear that his actions were protected constitutionally and that the prohibition against arresting persons exercising those rights should have been known to the officers; especially officers of the United States Capitol Police on the grounds of the United States Capitol. Their actions violated clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S. Ct. at 2738. This being so, the officers are not shielded from liability and are not protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. It is for this reason that the Court concluded that the Capitol Police Officers could be held liable under the facts of this case.” Michael A. Kroll, Plaintiff v. United States Capitol Police, et al., 683 F. Supp. 824 (D.DC 1987).
According to the leftist clown, you can’t sue police officers, yet here is just one example of the officers losing their qualified immunity.
The problem the Babbitt case is going to present is the lack of clearly established law in the context of a riot at the Capitol. While there are volumes of cases dealing with the use of deadly force, there isn’t much dealing with deadly force in the context of the unique security concerns at the Capitol. The court probably has enough room to maneuver there, but it’s not open and shut like the fake lawyer here claims.