There has to be some kind of balance against the overwhelming power law enforcement wields over citizens. Maybe totally removing qualified immunity isn't the answer. But something needs to change to curtail abuse. I have no idea what that might be - even stepping up internal enforcement of policy and proper procedure might have the unintended consequence of law enforcement becoming reluctant to do their jobs.

> There is no job on Earth that you could fill, from teacher to plumber to police officer, that literally anyone would do if they were held personally responsible for doing their job wrong on the job.

Most private jobs have no immunity from liability for workers for torts done on the job; in most the employer is also liable and often a more attractive litigation target—more money, more motivation to settle, more likely to pay a judgement it settlement. But the worker isn't immune, and it's regularly sued when the employer is.

And yet, people work all kinds of jobs with neither absolute nor qualified immunity.

When I was a bartender I had strict liability for:

- mistakes I made over-serving customers

- non uniformly applying dress code rules in ways that would be racist

- results of using violence as necessary to remove overly drunk patrons from the bar property (regardless of whether they drank anything at my bar)

And I got paid $2.65/hr for that privilege in 2008. But at least it was a job during a recession.

You never heard of a doctor sued for malpractice? Or a writer sued for libel?

A DoD Information Assurance Vulnerability Management professional is required to sign a document that says they will be personally responsible if a breach occurs on their watch due to error on their part. An IAVM protects intellectual property. A cop protects lives. I consider lives more important than intellectual property - so why shouldn't a cop have to sign the same type of document?

There is a big difference between an honest mistake and willful actions that sabotage the job. For the latter normal employees are being held personally responsible. There is no reason prosecutors / police / similar should be the exception. They've committed criminal acts. Let the fuckers suffer the same fate they've imposed on their victims at taxpayers expense.

> There is a big difference between an honest mistake and willful actions that sabotage the job

Willful sabotage is not protected by QI.

> They've committed criminal acts.

Criminal liability isn't affected by QI (it is affected by absolute immunity, but that only applies to things that are mandatory, not discretionary, parts of the job.)

>"Willful sabotage is not protected by QI."

Then please explain please how withholding exculpatory evidence contrary to the law is not a willful sabotage?

Your argument makes no sense because qualified immunity doesn't even protect against CRIMINAL acts, even today.

So I take it then that willfully ignoring a law and withholding an exculpatory evidence is not a crime then. Nice. Basically license to screw one's life without any consequences.

You literally just argued against the whole concept of liability