Ending qualified immunity is a red herring. As long as police unions keep their corrupting power, they'll just demand indemnification from the city as part of their contract.

And it's pretty irrelevant here, as I don't think the victims are successfully suing the various cities for killing their dogs. What really needs to happen is 1. actual criminal charging and prosecution of police officers, by an independent prosecutor that doesn't rely on a working relationship with police department for the bulk of their cases and 2. proper civil putative and emotional damages for pet deaths, rather than the legal system's current tendency to write it off as a petty loss.

> actual criminal charging and prosecution of police officers

Yes, this is what Qualified Immunity prevents.

QI is purely about civil suits.

By “indemnify”, I take it that you mean “agree to have prosecutors not press charges?” Or do you mean “agree to pay all costs?” I thought q.i. was about the criminal side, people win civil suits anyway.

QI is purely about the civil side. People currently win civil suits against the city for police officers' actions, with settlements coming out of taxpayers' general fund rather than anything affecting the miscreants. Ending QI would make the officers personally liable. Indemnify means the city agreeing to pay all damages suffers by the officers, and would mean essentially restoring the conditions we have now.

It is interesting that PETA doesn't seem to say very much about this. Does any organization?

Last time I checked, PETA was not okay with humans keeping animals as pets for their own amusement.