zlacker

>>mnm1+(OP)
I'm curious - it's obvious what abuses of qualified immunity are driving this, but the law must have been originally put in place for a reason. Are there any examples where a police officer was shielded from prosecution for something that, if you or I did it would definitely be a crime, but that a reasonable person would say, "yes, this is a good application of qualified immunity"?

>>comman+9m
I don’t understand all the details. I do understand that when you specifically hire someone to do something that has inherent risk of bad things happening to people ...

There seems like there should be some mechanism in place to limit or control their exposure to criminal prosecution.

At a certain point it seems like it would be too risky to oneself to do your job, if there are too many ways you can be prosecuted for doing it.

But on a specific level I have no idea.