Which side would that be aqula48?
Qualified immunity for government officials, including cops, isn't my side.
Indeed. There might be some extremely small set of circumstances where QI would make sense, but I don't see a way to have that without having a loophole big enough to fly a 747 through.
It’s QUALIFIED immunity, not carte blanche immunity.
The cop would still be subject to prosecution in a civil suits “if the plaintiff shows that the official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”. “
In other words if the cop violated a law or someone’s constitutional rights he could be prosecuted and convicted. And this qualified immunity is only for civil lawsuits, not criminal.
“In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”. “
I’m as weary as anybody about giving cops too much power given the possibility of abuse, but I’m also concerned about the other side of the coin, ie, tying their hands to such an extent that they’re unable or discouraged to protect us from the bad guy. So there has to be a balance, and given the fact that today things have shifted too much in favor of criminals, thugs, looters and arsonists I’m perfectly comfortable with this ruling.