“I was just following orders” = “I was just following the law”

we do not allow soldiers to get away with war crimes because of it, why should police be any different?

I think that letting it go to a jury is reasonable. QI short-circuits the entire jury process, ending the case almost immediately. Letting a lawsuit develop and letting a jury decide if the Officers actions were reasonable or not, given the totality of the circumstances, seems the correct solution to the problem, which as you note is somewhat tricky. After all, the officers who arrested the original 15 Episcopal Priests were found not liable by a jury of their peers. If it worked for them, why do you think it wouldn't work now?

Yes, police officers will have to deal with more lawsuits, but that's not an outcome that bothers me particularly. Society grants them a great deal of rights to violence that the rest of us do not have, they should likewise face greater scrutiny for their choices, or they are not worthy of holding that responsibility.

Note that Colorado removed QI by law, and made officers personally liable (up to certain limits) and seems to not be any sort of anarchy.

> I think it's clear that QI sometimes leads to bad outcomes, but honestly, I'm not sure how the system would function without some similar concept.

You’re not sure how Colorado could possibly exist?

You can easily come up with opposite scenarios: if the law says you go to jail for being a certain race and sitting in a certain place, or for being certain sex and wearing certain clothes, should police officers suffer no consequences for enforcing such things? We've long established that "just following orders" is not a sufficient excuse.

There are cases where it's reasonable for a police officer to enforce a law that turns out to be unconstitutional and there are cases where it's not. Distinguishing between those cases is what the courts are for. Giving officers blanket immunity is not the way to handle it.

Every time I'm out and about, I have to wonder if I'm making some mistake that's going to get me in trouble with the law. Why should police be exempt from this?

The same way it does everything, by letting it go to a court and have them figure it out, like every one crime or civil action - why would the cops be different if they are doing illegal things?

This is not a sliding slope, its just acknowledging police are also just people.

It's worth noting that 3 of the 4 examples above deal with guns. The 4th deals with knives. ... Thank God we spend so much time and energy arguing about weapons, guided by a document that was written over 200 years ago. It would be a nightmare if, as a society, we spent that energy on something like curing disease or providing for the needy. Sheesh. /s