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 believe qualified immunity is a creature of the courts, and related to absolute immunity (given to prosecutors and legislators), as well as sovereign immunity (possessed by the state).

The idea is that people acting on behalf of the sovereign deserve some of the immunity that the sovereign itself takes advantage of. The immunity allows agents of the state to act with less fear of reprisals, especially in edge cases, or when dealing with powerful counter-parties.

>>nickff+9o
Isn't this also supposed to redirect lawsuits towards institutions, instead of agents of these institutions? I.e. a police officer did something that otherwise would be a crime, so the law investigates the whole PD as an institution, and not the officer that presumably was just following orders given by said institution?