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, but only for officers that have had a clean record of no complaints, or a record with complaints that can be disregarded as irrelevant, such as giving someone a ticket lawfully and having a complaint lodged against them.
Officers should receive more rigorous training, thereby lowering the necessity for such an immunity I would advocate for immunity as long as the officer has a history of serving the public and good evidence of his behalf. However if the officer has overwhelming good evidence against him he should be held accountable for his actions.
I do not believe so. If you give those who are supposed to protect the community immunity over the law, then they will take advantage of that and do many heinous crimes that no citizen would ever commit on their own.
It depends because all police aren’t perfect and some people would sue the police just to get money out of them but then again half of the things that police do and say to people most likely wouldn’t happen if they could be sued
No, I do not support any form of qualified immunity in any law enforcement, military or governmental body. Higher-ups and superiors should be allowed to substitute in place of the subordinate being charged for any form of punishment.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.