Yes but before qualified immunity before 1960 officers did not have to be worried about the lawsuits that they now face. That was before civil rights, rampant lawsuits and cameras everywhere with judgments made because someone saw a 20 second video.
Police have a lot more to worry about these days(I don’t think that is necessarily bad). Before TN vs Garner which was 1980(I think) a cop could shoot an unarmed fleeing felon in the back just like dirty Harry. Now days police are held to a higher standard and stricter use of force policies(a good thing). Point being good officers need protection from the anti police crowd and false or frifiliz lawsuits.
Even the best police/humans make bad or wrong decisions under certain situations. There has to be some protection for officers who are doing their best to make the right split second decisions when it is or could be a matter of life and death.
Don’t get me wrong I am all for punishing bad officers, nothing makes me angrier then seeing an officer of the law abusing their authority or a person. I have been considering filing a complaint against an officer who recently violated my and 4 other people’s rights(illegal search and seizure as well as breaking and entering).
“Yes but before qualified immunity before 1960 officers did not have to be worried about the lawsuits that they now face.”
Nope, I think the first civil suit for rights violation was 1820. It was in the article I provided which is a very thorough examination of the history of the issue.
QI has to go. It isn’t just cops it protects, but bureaucrats from all the alphabet soup agencies currently eating out the substance of our freedom.