I mean, this is how it should work morally, and arguably how the law was designed to work. But it has since been interpreted as this: even if it is clear to al

I mean, this is how it should work morally, and arguably how the law was designed to work. But it has since been interpreted as this: even if it is clear to all parties that the duties were not performed in a reasonable manner, qualified immunity applies unless the case fits the exact pattern of a prior case that held officials accountable. How exact must the match of circumstances be? https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/qualified-immunity-legal-practical-moral-failure#stringency-clearly-established-law https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/qualified-immunity-lega... (note: opinions in this article and by this organization are not mine) has examples: > A prior Sixth Circuit case had already held that an officer clearly violated the Fourth Amendment when he used a police dog without warning against an unarmed residential burglary suspect who was lying on the ground with his hands at his sides.42 But the court here held that this prior case was insufficient because “Baxter does not point us to any case law suggesting that raising his hands, on its own, is enough to put Harris on notice that a canine apprehension was unlawful in these circumstances.”43 In other words, prior case law holding it unlawful to deploy police dogs against nonthreatening suspects who surrendered by laying on the ground did not make it clear that it was unlawful to deploy police dogs against nonthreatening suspects who surrendered by sitting on the ground with their hands up. > Nevertheless, in spite of this objectively unreasonable shooting, a majority of the Sixth Circuit panel found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The court itself acknowledged that several prior cases had clearly established that “shooting a driver while positioned to the side of his fleeing car violates the Fourth Amendment, absent some indication suggesting that the driver poses more than a fleeting threat.”46 Even though that statement would seem to govern this case exactly, the majority held that these prior cases were “distinguishable” because they “involved officers confronting a car in a parking lot and shooting the non‐ violent driver as he attempted to initiate flight,” whereas here “Phillips shot Latits after Latits led three police officers on a car chase for several minutes.”47 The lone dissenting judge in this case dryly observed that “the degree of factual similarity that the majority’s approach requires is probably impossible for any plaintiff to meet.”48 To make an analogy to our industry, it's like the famous Reflections on Trusting Trust compiler paper here: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref... - if your compiler is compromised to the extent that even when compiling a compiler, it inserts the same exact compromise in the newly compiled compiler... then there's no turning back. And here we have a concept of qualified immunity that cannot ever be given nuance, because it's impossible to adjudicate based on a no-longer-existing version of the case law that allows nuance to be added to the concept of qualified immunity. It's, quite literally, a cancer from any logical perspective. We should be ashamed as a society to have allowed such a system to exist. Only new national legislation, to my knowledge, can stop the rot, and that will come far too late for many who have suffered at the hands of law enforcement officials. (IANAL, this is not legal advice)