Qualafied immunity is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy. People who advocate for its elimination only know about it from the negative context and don't fully understand its value.
For example say a rich person murders their partner. The cops show up and the killer says "if you arrest me I will drag all of you into court personally for years to come and bankrupt your families." Without QI the officers need to make a decision if justice is worth the risk of personal loss.
Or if a rich person wants to build a new deck which is denied a permit, QI is what prevents them from personally dragging everyone involved to court personally.
QI does not eliminate personal liability when a crime has been committed. If an officer shoots someone and is charged criminally, they can then be sued personally.
Without getting into a longwinded discussion of specifics, QI as a concept within the legal system has existed for quite a long time. The case you cite is where it was codified into an explict short-circuit that prevented the cases from being filed in the first place.
Because other democracies tend to have functioning police oversight and populations that are not openly hostile to the police. QI is actually rooted in English common law, so similar concepts exist in other countries that also adopted the system.
> QI is what prevents them from personally dragging everyone involved to court personally.
No it doesn't. The case will get thrown out on some other grounds when the officials sends in their report on why the permit was denied. Likewise, not responding to the lawsuit could result in a default judgement regardless of QI.
We can keep frivolous lawsuits by people pissed off with bureaucracy from happening while also allowing government officials to be sued for the actual economic damages they inflict on people.
Ah yes, the classic someone will abuse it, so we'll make it illegal! By that same logic, we could just make it illegal to be rich, so no rich people are around to abuse the lawsuits -- checkmate!
For example say a rich person murders their partner. The cops show up and the killer says "if you arrest me I will drag all of you into court personally for years to come and bankrupt your families." Without QI the officers need to make a decision if justice is worth the risk of personal loss.
Or if a rich person wants to build a new deck which is denied a permit, QI is what prevents them from personally dragging everyone involved to court personally.
QI does not eliminate personal liability when a crime has been committed. If an officer shoots someone and is charged criminally, they can then be sued personally.