I believe qualified immunity only protects from direct civil litigation but not criminal.

Yep, it's a rough analogy, not a perfect match.

And, given the state of policing and justice in the US, civil litigation is often the only way to get any relief for over-zealous policing. And QI makes that bar even higher than it should be.

Find me a DA that will routinely prosecute crooked cops. They don’t exist because the gangs close ranks and protest by refusing to their job. When other state employees protest they get beaten and forced back to work.

Interesting.

I think that’s the argument, yes. I think it’s facially a bad one when you consider all the examples of functional police that lack QI. Makes me skeptical that it’s a good faith argument.

100% agree.

AFAIK, QI no longer exists in England (not sure about Scotland or N.I.). And Germany never had it (civil cases for damages would be against the state, not the state representative).

> civil cases for damages would be against the state, not the state representative

Isn’t that the same as QI?

Qualified immunity is already really bad though...

That's not a defense though - because of qualified immunity, cops get to be rampant authoritarians with 0 recourse for most people.