Indemnification means that their employer (i.e. municipalities) must pay for their legal defense in a civil suit and any judgment that arises under it.

1983 cases are technically against individuals but not at all in a practical sense.

For some reason activists have zero interest in tackling this issue even though it could be done on a divide and conquer basis and even though it would provide much more deterrence than eliminating QI. I almost suspect the influence of the plaintiffs’ bar is at play.

Are you saying that, for practical purposes, qualified immunity doesn't matter to the individual as they will almost always be indemnified anyway? I suppose this is true in a pragmatic way, but not in theory. As you say, there's no law that says the government agency has to indemnify. While I'd be surprised to find a case where the official ended up paying anything out of their own pocket, there are plenty of cases where the official has lost their job over a judgement against them and none that I could find where they won the case due to being covered under qualified immunity but still lost their job over it.

Are you saying that, for practical purposes, qualified immunity doesn't matter to the individual as they will almost always be indemnified anyway?

Yep, except the almost part.

A couple years ago BLM had energy yet was distracted and diverted from the enabling problem - USSC qualified immunity.

Eliminating qualified immunity only helps with the second part and does zero with respect to the first, but advocates of reform never make that clear.

Even with qualified immunity sometimes victims win judgments. On the other hand indemnification is 100% universal and effective at protecting cops. No cop ever pays anything out of his own pocket, period.

Instead of hoping for trickle down to work why not attack the problem directly?