Except for Kim Potter, who’s looking at 20+ years in prison, right? No consequences for her, right? She did what she did, she admitted to doing what she did. And she’s dealing with the consequences.
Lt Michael Byrd, murders a diminutive, unarmed woman and NOTHING.
So, the qualified immunity argument is so screwed up it’s hard to know which way is up anymore.
Again, if this guy is asking for anything, then something went wrong. He knows it. He wants distance from it. But, at the end of the day, it’s those same politicians that give him the qualified immunity.
However, we are talking about Australia, not the US. That is perhaps a huge thing to overlook. Do the cops in Australia have the same immunity as they do in the US?
Immunity is a judicial construct in the first place, in the US - could be modified by a statute, and is, in parts of the US (Colorado). US and AUS are both derived from Brit Common law (except Lousiana is derived from French civil law).
I figure the two jurisdictions (US by and large, vs. AUS) are similar, but not identically worded.
Quick peek at AUS, it’s called “police immunity” there, and appears to derive from statutes.
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2018/24.html