[JamesSwift]

Well, I didnt bring it up but the other element of qualified immunity is that its purely for civil suits. So it would only show up if an officer was basically sued personally. It doesnt apply to criminal prosecution. Thats another can of worms though.

[saghm]

Sure, the issues there are also not particularly nuanced; prosectors rely on cops to arrest people and provide evidence for them to do their job, so they're incentivized to keep a good working relationship with them (i.e. by not prosecuting them, especially for things that end up helping them secure convictions, even if they're illegal)

[JamesSwift]

I agree. The issues arent super nuanced (and are pretty "blatant")

But I do think the nuance of "who/what should we point our finger at" is important. Because like we see in this thread, the finger is being pointed at qualified immunity when it almost never is the actual issue for a given injustice, and fixing it will not get rid of the thing you are mad about. Fixing it would go a long way to resetting some cultural precedence though in my opinion.

[saghm]

Fair enough. My instinct is that qualified immunity is such a common target because it's not an emergent property of the system that would potentially require structural changes to fix, and that lawsuits are often the only remedy people have for the structural problems like the ones we're talking about. Being able to "have your day in court" is at least theoretically the way that regular people can get justice when the system fails them, so when the system adds another layer of protection onto itself to prevent that with virtually no constitutional basis via judicial review (and therefore could also theoretically be removed in the same manner by a future court more sympathetic to victims of injustice perpetrated by law enforcement), it's kind of hard not to fixate on that.