Maybe you are right and there is a good Samaritan defense.

But the thing is that regardless of the defense, police should be subject to the same judicial process an unbadged citizen would face. Which, in this case, is happening, because there is video.

If an officer causes grievous bodily harm or death, absent a clear affirmative defense, they should stand trial just like any other citizen.

If they want to be judged under a different legal framework, we can always put them under the UCMJ.

Related: Do we need police?

Short answer, yes.

Longer answer - we need to stop asking them to deal with social problems. Which means we need to stop passing laws making such social problems illegal.

And that means that we need to remember that just because a law is dressed up as health and safety, doesn't mean it's really about health and safety.

CATO has a good article on how CRBs are made useless, even in liberal strongholds.

It's not the unions as much as the contracts said unions are allowed to negotiate for.

I mean, we have rules about contracts, right? You can't sign away rights, etc.

I see no reason we can't have laws that say employment contracts can not provide rights and privileges that supersede the law, or something like that.

Let the police keep their unions, just don't let unions give the police special rights when it comes to criminal or civil actions.

Why would the employer not be on the hook for the actions of their employee?

Speaking of QI and other shenanigans, Balko has a good piece up today about no-knock warrants and how they are abused (and why).

Personally, I think removing or reforming QI should be one of the first dominoes to fall, but is by no means the only domino that needs to fall.

Basically I see QI as a bulwark that stands against enforcing any and all other potential reforms. As long as QI remains as it is, TPTB have no incentive to change, and very limited ability to enforce change.