zlacker

>>jselig+(OP)
I think because we all made the presumption that obvious police abuses would be punished once we had video evidence.

We didn't take into consideration the justice system's complete lack of appetite at holding officers responsible for egregious violations of life, civil liberties, and property rights.

>>isbjor+96
It's not only no appetite, but in many cases, no legal culpability.

Qualified immunity being a major element of that, at least in civil law.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/872470083/qualified-immunity-...

See also asset forfeiture.

>>dredmo+EH
I've also read that unions see the writing on the wall that QI might be peeled back and are lobbying to get their renewed employment contracts to get the city/county/state indemnify the department/officers. It's not the QI doctrine of old, but it serves the same purpose.