Black and white thinking is unproductive.

There is a middle ground,

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 2 2020 12:40pm

Present the middle ground.

Qualified immunity for actions that are clearly within the bounds of the law and needed to ensure safety while clarifying the lines of acceptable actions, like making police literally stealing things not a covered action, or police destroying a house and not compensating the home owners while pursuing a single person.

No qualified immunity opens the police up to being sued for doing things we all agree they should be able to do, like pursuing clearly dangerous individuals, and total qualified immunity means they're effectively a gang operating outside the bounds of the law.

Where the line should be is difficult, so it's tempting to just want to move it one way or the other, but that's a lazy man's way out.

This is already where we are.

No it isn't, both of those were allowed under qualified immunity recent court cases

Stuff that is "obviously" wrong, they have been held protected, time and time again.

A rare good point from thor.

Total removal would be a colossal mistake. In the age of video editing and so much provocation you can't expect cops to always have an even hand in split second decisions. There should be discretion on the small stuff.

Yes, which is why we need to amend the current system to fix that.

But you're saying "amend it with what is already there."

Who cares?