Qualified immunity is a defense that police officers cannot be sued for misconduct if they were unaware at the time that their conduct was illegal and if there is no previous legal case with similar facts that ruled that officers may not engage in that conduct. Proponents argue that more intense criticism of police will disincentivize officers from doing their jobs resulting in crime rates going up. Opponents argue that police officers should be held more accountable for misconduct.
Yes, provide more training and education for police officers but only for officers that have a clean record of no complaints. Also, do increase the personal liability for misconduct and allow other police officers to call out colleagues for misbehavior online toward suspects; I support free speech 100% in this case scenario.
The police joined the force under the impression that they must serve the public by setting a precedent, being a role model, and essentially striving to be a perfect citizen. There shouldn't be immunity, I don't think. It should be situational, case by case.
I'm okay with qualified immunity, assuming we cut down the number of police, and require a much more higher standard of police that we higher. Including requirements fir education on safety for themselves and others, and education on the neighborhoods they serve, the people in them, and the history of their neighborhoods. Aswell as live in the neighborhoods they protect.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion