They still can be.
Because the certifying agency for state Law Enforcement can revoke them as cops....
They won't be though. I'll bet you any amount of money they keep their jobs unless an election overthrows the Uvalde county everything.
Is that because they didn't get shown in public to shock them into action?
Shock who, the public or the cops? The public is shown their horrors, and is sometimes called to action, but the left race baits them into making it racial in an attempt to turn justified anger towards blowing up society. The right sees this, and decides that since the left hates them, all cops are good, even the shitty ones, and make all manner of apologia for them. And thus a movement about reforming police again becomes a racebaiting stupidity war, time and again. But usually some small progress is made.
That progress is then destroyed by the cancer that is a police union. It will always advocate for cops (fair enough). But the issue is the people they are arguing with: local bureaucrats who can change the law far easier than the state house or feds. The bureaucrats don't have proper skin in the game, cause the cops will never come down on them. Second, they aren't negotiating against the police unions, but with them against the taxpayer, as the union vote is strong.
So they'll promise pay raises with other peoples money, just like teacher's unions. But then, if that gets too expensive, they also negotiate with new laws to benefit police, including use of force guidelines, paying for lawyers for cops, paying cops salaries even after they are convicted for killing a man, ways to not release names to the public to shield bad cops from embarrassment, bullshit review boards that always find in cops favor or are hamstrung by impossible odds, etc.
And on top of this is the problem with qualified immunity. If you've watched Tucker on this, Tucker lied to you. Yes, shocker, the media lies. Qualified immunity doesn't just shield cops acting in good faith. It shields
every cop, even those who know what they are doing is wrong, if a near exact match for the case hasn't been seen yet.
Okay, beating a prisoner to death is established as wrong in this jurisdiction, but what if he appears to resist? New fact pattern, qualified immunity, and the judge doesn't even have to rule whether it violated the constitution for future crimes. So knowing leaving a person in a sewage swamped jail for days? Not established as cruel and unusual, so no ruling. There are countless cases like this. Each one it's own mini horror. And judges do nothing
despite a law specifically saying state agents are liable for doing this. Instead, SCOTUS made up an exception from whole cloth for them.
And even once we get past qualified immunity, a cop has no duty to save you or help you if it involves putting his life at risk. IMO that is bullshit. Yes, a
person has no such duty, but when taking a government job, one frequently signs over rights and accepts a duty as part and parcel of taking the job. Taking some jobs means that you can't share government secrets, which willingly signs away your first amendment rights. You waive them in order to take the job. Why not do the same with cops?
ussanews.com
www.fec.gov
