Vance: ICE agent as "absolute immunity" in the shooting. .......

[Wiz Imp]

13. 100% false statement

They have "Qualified" immunity

https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/qualified-immunity-today

While doing their jobs and protecting the public, law enforcement and correctional personnel regularly engage in activities — including handcuffing, restraining, and imprisoning fellow citizens — that do not otherwise conform to social norms. Such conduct is protected by the legal doctrine of qualified immunity (QI), which shields public servants from civil liability for reasonably fulfilling their duties. However, while broad, this protection is not absolute.

Limits of Protection

The recent Taylor v. Riojas case was a rare U.S. Supreme Court rejection of QI claims, which raises the question Is QI being narrowed? The answer is no. While QI remains unchanged, the Taylor case indicates that the Court will not endorse the granting of QI for conduct so shocking that it offends the Eighth Amendment on its face, even if the facts are novel.
A defense that generally protects law enforcement officers from personal liability for the reasonable discharge of their duties, QI tends to be broadly applied by courts to allow officers to do their jobs. In so doing, courts generally rely on established practices and legal precedent. However, the Court held that QI is unavailable for conduct that obviously violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, even if that specific behavior has not previously and specifically been held as wrong.