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
> Are there any examples where a police officer was shielded from prosecution...

QI doesn't apply only to police officers, indeed, the modern framing was established in a lawsuit against Presidential aides on a federal contracting matter. (And done in the course of denying their claim of absolute immunity.)

Were QI eliminated, you can bet the bulk of cases would be deep-pockets corporate interests suing individual government officials, not the kind of law enforcement issues that most of the media attention on QI focuses on.

>>dragon+zz
> Were QI eliminated, you can bet the bulk of cases would be deep-pockets corporate interests suing individual government officials

See: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-08-13-mn-861-st...