No, and increase the personal liability for misconduct

Police officers should not be given any more immunity than the citizens they are meant to protect, this encourages the idea of a higher and lower tiers of citizens, and discourages empathy.

Based on the information available, there are compelling arguments and data suggesting that eliminating or significantly limiting qualified immunity for police officers, coupled with increased personal liability for misconduct, would benefit police accountability and public trust.
Arguments for increasing personal liability and limiting qualified immunity:
Increased accountability: Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability unless their actions violate "clearly established law," which often requires identifying a nearly identical previous case of unconstitutional cond…  Read moreuct. This makes it difficult to hold officers accountable, even for egregious misconduct. Increasing personal liability could deter misconduct and incentivize adherence to constitutional rights.
Deterrence of misconduct: The prospect of facing civil lawsuits and potential financial consequences could deter officers from engaging in misconduct.
Justice for victims: Eliminating qualified immunity could provide a pathway for victims of police misconduct to seek justice and compensation for their injuries.
Restoring public trust: By making officers accountable for their actions, repealing qualified immunity could help rebuild trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
Promoting systemic change: Increased liability could incentivize police departments and government entities to implement better policies, training, and oversight to prevent misconduct.
Data and examples:
Growing criticism and support for repeal: Organizations like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU advocate for abolishing qualified immunity, citing its detrimental impact on accountability and justice.
State-level reforms: Several states, including Colorado and New Mexico, have passed laws to diminish or eliminate qualified immunity for police officers, allowing individuals to pursue civil rights claims in state court.
Cases highlighting the issue: Cases like Jamison v. McClendon, where an officer could not be sued despite an illegal search, and Frasier v. Evans, where qualified immunity protected officers who illegally confiscated and deleted evidence of their actions, illustrate how qualified immunity can prevent holding officers accountable for misconduct.
Counterarguments and considerations:
Protecting officers: Some argue that qualified immunity is essential for officers to perform their duties effectively and without fear of frivolous lawsuits.
Potential negative impacts on policing: Concerns have been raised that ending qualified immunity could lead to a decrease in proactive policing and difficulty recruiting and retaining officers.
Financial burden on officers and municipalities: Critics argue that removing qualified immunity could place a significant financial burden on individual officers and municipalities, although studies suggest that officers are typically indemnified, and increased liability could lead to long-term cost savings through deterrence.
In conclusion, while the debate over qualified immunity is ongoing, the arguments and data suggest that increasing personal liability for police misconduct, coupled with limitations on qualified immunity, could lead to greater police accountability and a more just legal system. It's crucial to acknowledge the complexities and competing interests involved while working towards reforms that strike a balance between holding officers accountable and ensuring their ability to effectively protect communities.

police are enforcers of the law and for them to disobey it would be even worse than if a normal person were to do it

Police are citizens as well and shouldn't be treated differently because they have a badge because it lets more cops commit crimes with no issues

Police go through intense training of the law, and yes, mistakes happen, we are all just human, but when you are intensely trained on the law, and you hold a deadly weapon, you should be held to a higher standard.

If a cop does some bad things like targeting minoritys or has some deals with coruped people they should be made accountable for their actions and arrested not just given a slap on the wrist.

As we rely on people to uphold our laws, they should be our prime examples for all of us. To taint this ideal model should be more than a slap on the wrist. For it leads to others finding it fine to do the same. For their job to enforce the law, they should keep up to date on it and be held accountable similar to a doctor keeping up to date on medical news and new methods or an engineer doing the same with new models and theories to help improve.

There are open Proud boys serving on the police force in my city and others. The lack of accountability is resulting in marginalized communities being targeted, and attacked by a police officers. They are here to protect and serve not to be Judge, jury, and executioner.

Police officers are ultimately civilians, so they should be held to the same standard as any other member of the public.

Therefore, implementation of personal liability and misconduct would hold police officers accountable to the actions we have seen, the crimes that continue to be committed, and to their abuse of power. (ex.Darryl Tyree Williams- died at 32 on Jan 17, 2023 in Raleigh, NC. He was tasered and killed by a cop after he informed them of heart issues.) Source: usatoday.com; SayTheirNames List)

Therefore, implementation of personal liability and misconduct would hold police officers accountable to the actions we have seen, the crimes that continue to be committed, and to their abuse of power. (ex.Darryl Tyree Williams- died at 32 on Jan 17, 2023 in Raleigh, NC. He was tasered and killed by a cop after he informed them of heart issues.) Source: usatoday.com; SayTheirNames List)

Based on previous information read, I agree that because police are enforcers of the law it shows signs of hypocrisy to know that giving them immunity puts them above those established laws created by them to “protect and serve,” how are they supposed to do their job of protect others and putting them first if they put themselves first.

Anyone who commits a crime is guilty of that crime. Why should anyone want a criminal as a president

"Police violence continues to be a critical public health issue. From 1980 to 2018, approximately 30,000 deaths were attributed to police violence in the United States.1 The highly publicized recent police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Michael Brown, Philando Castille, and many others have raised questions regarding police conduct, namely failure to render aid and the appropriate use of force. Although the United States makes up 4% of the world population, it accounts for almost 13% of fatal police-related deaths." National Library of Medicine.

According to a 2025 study conducted by Vageesh Jain and David Hemenway, it has been found that 79% of police gunshot victims have been shot multiple times, compared to 65% of civilian gunshot victims. This insinuates that police are more susceptible to opening fire when it is deemed unnecessary, but police officers are not held accountable nearly as much as they should be.

If they are personally held responsible for their actions just like everyone else is then they will either not become a police agent in the first place or will face the appropriate consequences of their actions which incentivizes them to behave especially if they are held to a higher standard due to their position.

The perception that police are "above the law" diminishes the credibility of the justice system, particularly in communities of color. This lack of trust can make policing more difficult and dangerous as community cooperation decreases.

https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/qualified-immunity-analyses-police-misconduct-lawsuits/#:~:text=The%20bottom%20line:%20Individual%20officers,when%20applicable%20law%20prohibited%20indemnification.%E2%80%9D

Yes, it should be increased since there have been several occurrences when someone is arrested or shot by police who didn't do anything.

Criminals serve their crimes behind bars, why for some police officers who are on top of the ranks who did the same crime, only their licenses are revoked?

For fatal shootings fewer than 1% of officers are faced with charges and 0.3% of officers are convicted.
From 2016 to 2022 studies found that only 1 in every 7 complaints (about 14%) were ruled in favor of civilians.

In a field where someone works with several human lives on the line, they should be held extremely liable for what harm they may cause, especially seeing as they are trusted by oath to serve and protect.

Police are given a large amount of responsibility. With that they gain a large amount of power. If an officer is found to be abusing that power or misusing it, they should be swiftly and harshly punished for it. If an officer does something wrong, why should they not get punished just because they are on duty?

Police departments in the U.S. were created to be slave patrols and to control the enslaved population in the South. Why would a department founded on generations of racism NOT need to have the liability for misconduct increased?

The whole role of a police officer is to enforce the law and to protect those who are innocent, but an officer whether they are off or on duty should be held accountable for their own actions.

Police officers do they're job like any other person yes it may be harder, but they are getting paid for this also. They are the same as us they are people.

In many jurisdictions, victims must point to a prior court case with nearly identical facts in order to defeat qualified immunity.

Police are given a large amount of responsibility. With that they gain a large amount of power. If an officer is found to be abusing that power or misusing it, they should be swiftly and harshly punished for it. If an officer does something wrong, why should they not get punished just because they are on duty?

Police are protected from accountability by qualified immunity, especially in cases where crime is not prevented by training. Chicago settled more than $500 million in payments between 2015 and 2020; however, research indicates that taxpayers, not cops, pay 99.98% of these payments. Because of qualified immunity, federal courts reject almost half of civil rights complaints against police, denying victims of justice. Police should face repercussions for unlawful conduct, just like other professionals like doctors or lawyers do. Training alone is insufficient. Restoring individual responsibility and eliminating qualified immunity will ensure accountability, prevent improper use, and rebuild public confidence.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-police-unions
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/faculty-articles/1295/
https://couragecaliforniainstitute.org/investing-in-public-safety-the-influence-of-police-unions-and-associations/
https://www.columbialawreview.org/content/whats-wrong-with-police-unions/

With each year, more and more police are being tried for brutality and other heinous crimes. Creating a system of more liability will create a stricter environment in order to ensure lawful procedures from police.

Pattern of police brutality in this country, they see anyone doing things different as a threat, for example, disabled people are killed for doing things they don't understand, like cryingin a movie theatre they aren't allowed to be and the police choke them to death. NOt everyone watches them. Also they do not care about miniorities and people can be swatted

Police are meant to uphold the law and be a sort of role model for people, and so for them to break it would be destructive to both themselves and everyone they have affected.

$300 million per year for police misconduct payouts almost entirely funded by taxpayers without the increase of liability the repeat offenders should prevent abuse.

Lawsuits against the police should be able to include an element of liability for the officer(s) involved and not just mindlessly penalize the tax payers instead. The way it is now is literally the end result of the bullying in society that happens now: The bully is most often not punished and instead a "blame or punish" everyone in the room mentality happens. ex: Student A is a jerk or bullies other students. Teacher didn't "see" it (although I think most of the time they know full well what is happening) and so everyone is given detention / loses privileges, etc.

15% of civilians who experience police threat or use of force during interventions are injured, 250,000 civilian injures are caused by law enforcement annually, and that more than 600 people are killed by law enforcement each year.

https://policeepi.uic.edu/u-s-data-on-police-shootings-and-violence/

Once again, I think law enforcement officers need to be held accountable for violating someone's constitutional rights.

with lack of accountability you get the police from afro man's music video, "will you help me repair my door." where not only traumatize his kids, but disconnect his surveillance cameras and have been caught taking his money. Are the several videos from all around the country of police brutality not enough? or the case of John Lang, all while a conspiracy, with the heavy evidence, there was no investigation.

Power can often get to someone's head and giving anyone, police or otherwise, immunity to being held liable for misconduct, results in crimes being swept under the rug and brushed off. This allows people in power to get away with negative behavior with no repercussions which is an overall detriment.

Police should be held to the same legal standards as any other US citizen. They are not infallible just because they have a badge. They are human just like the rest of us and should be treated the same as any other citizen if they commit a crime.