@oralloy,
From what I understand of Qualified Immunity, I would have to agree that it is a bad idea that it be ended. By the very nature:
- the volume of law
- the specificity of law
- dealing with volatile people (whether violent, armed, mentally ill, drug affected etc)
- in hazardous situations (on the side of the road, in other peoples homes <think kitchen knives>, in the dark, on construction sites etc)
...things will go wrong.
For the law, there's a reason lawyers specialise. There's a reason most of them will do legal research on a case, etc. Or from another viewpoint - anyone who has tried to memorise word for word a book, will know the difficulties associated with laws - and for law, often every word of a law has meaning.
That is to say - I don't think any sane person would want to be a police officer without protection from civil suits. There is a corresponding downside as I understand it (in holding police to account), but openning officers to civil suits to me, would result in an even worse situation - the ones smart enough to understand the repercussions will no longer want to be police (ie. the IQ / Common Sense level of police would fall significantly, resulting in even worse interactions)
Solutions have to be positive in the long term. Short term solutions that worsen the situation long term are counter-productive.