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
It's important to clarify. "Qualified Immunity" is NOT a law. It is judicial precedent. That means the Supreme Court made this up and courts don't go against prior rulings except in rare cases. Sometimes Congress creates laws to confirm judicial rulings or go against them and clarify their intentions.

The Supreme Court has ruled a lot of things that we would not allow to stand today. For instance, the Dred Scott Case [1] "In a landmark case, the United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, as the court ruled this to have been unconstitutional, as it would "improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

>>apover+uv
"made this up" is a bit pejorative. The also "made up" modern abortion rights and gay marriage. A law professor would probably say that they decided that prior interpretation was unjust/unconstitutional and made a change.

>>downer+iJ
You could teach a whole course on Roe alone. Let's not just generalize a monumentus court decision like that with a hand wave.