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.
Case by case basis. Sometimes genuine accidents and unfortunate tragedies do happen. However, sometimes the harm caused far outweighs the oversight. At the least, immunity needs a serious overlook because it is heavily abused as is.
No, there are countless instances where people have ended up being killed or seriously injured by officers despite said person doing what they were supposed to do. As such, accountability in those cases is crucial. EX: Jack Yantis.
No, all cops are enforcing the law there for they should know if a cop doesn't know what they are doing is illegal or they do know they should charged just a much as a normal human and if they use the excuse that they are a cop they should be charged more.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion