Thanks for the pointless personal attacks, but what you say is, in addition to needlessly insulting, factually incorrect. The US title code is littered with disclaimers preventing laws from "interfering with a law enforcement officer's execution of duty." In fact the US title code has to explicitly spell out what is inappropriate "under color of law," which term it defines, and most of those infractions listed are rights violations or discriminatory actions.
Fifteen states have the Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights codified into their statutes. The rest are either considering it or have something very similar codified into law.
Qualified immunity is not "the very thing" protecting law enforcement officers. It is, however, "the very thing" our elected representatives have almost no input into or control over. Removing qualified immunity would in fact not affect any of these actual laws, and replacing it with a codified law would enable more consistent and just application of the concept, which as I said before is currently just something a judge can decide whether and how to apply.
Correcting your ignorant claims is not 'gaslighting.' Your emotional distress over the matter does not qualify you to accuse me of abuse, and I don't appreciate your mischaracterization of my posts.
No. I'm sorry, but your understanding of this topic is fundamentally wrong, and it's so far off the rails that I don't know how to go about fixing it over the Internet.
Sovereign immunity, and the qualified immunity for agents of the sovereign which arises as a corollary, is a fundamental principle of Anglo-American law. It has nothing to do with whatever patchwork of the U.S. code you seem to be implying.
Fifteen states have the Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights codified into their statutes. The rest are either considering it or have something very similar codified into law.
Qualified immunity is not "the very thing" protecting law enforcement officers. It is, however, "the very thing" our elected representatives have almost no input into or control over. Removing qualified immunity would in fact not affect any of these actual laws, and replacing it with a codified law would enable more consistent and just application of the concept, which as I said before is currently just something a judge can decide whether and how to apply.
Correcting your ignorant claims is not 'gaslighting.' Your emotional distress over the matter does not qualify you to accuse me of abuse, and I don't appreciate your mischaracterization of my posts.