Resolved: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers.

I’m writing this late at night after a very long soccer game and homework. My body is tired and aching, I’m in my comfy bed, and my eyes droop down. I blink them every couple minutes to try to stay awake. Given this, my response won’t be that extensive or sound sexy.Zaradi starts by providing a plan to use civilian oversight to solve for cases in which police officers are able to escape penalties for excessive force charges. The plan utilizes civilian overview, which is the assembly of citizens in order to review government activities, in this case a litigation for police brutality. Con argues that in cases when a police officer qualifies for immunity by the judge but is indicted of police brutality by the jury, that civilian oversight should be used to become the tie-breaker.I find a problem with this in that it violates the fundamental balance in the court system by implementing majority rule. The judge is a vital check on the dangers of majority rule as the judge stands as an impartial and independent interpreter of the facts and how these apply to the law. If the judge can be so easily overruled by a majority in a civilian panel, the check on majority rule is negated. I find this important because majority rule is dangerous to the rights of the minority. Clearly established laws that protect the basic rights of the people and cannot be violated by popular vote is essential in preserving justice. These laws *must* not be determined by a majority rule means (such as a jury) because this would violate the sanctity and purpose of the law, and thus a judge is introduced to balance the power. Con’s plan to override the judge and decide excessive force cases—a law protecting the right of people that cannot be violated by majority rule—thus is dangerous as it gives too much power to majority rule. And since majority rule is extremely dangerous to the rights of people and preserving justice, I argue that we do not accept Con’s plan of civilian oversight. This outweighs any arguments of civilian courts being neutral since a judge would also be neutral, as well as because a civilian court would represent the majority view and thus violate the purpose of having laws protecting rights.Con’s next argument doesn’t make much sense to me. Con argues that qualified immunity just compensates money for police officers, and thus there would be no incentive to stop the harms that I argued for. But the harms I argued for was the system that is used to grant qualified immunity allows officers to not be punished for brutality which hurts public image and thus police effectiveness. The satisfaction of police officers is irrelevant as I do not need to incentivise them to do anything for my argument to work. This is a defensive argument to an argument I never made. I ignore it then.Con’s next argument is that qualified immunity gives police officers breathing room and thus they can operate better. This argument is already negated based on weighing analysis because of my argument of qualified immunity lowering police compliance and cooperation. So any effectiveness brought about by qualified immunity is already negated by bringing about greater harms. But also, the idea that police officers will take actions differently based on the status of qualified immunity is silly. If an officer is engaged in a circumstance in which he is to make a decision that might put him in court. He is not thinking about his qualified immunity, but rather the guidelines in which he was taught in police training to follow. The status of qualified immunity would not affect the actions of police officers, or at least it should not. Officers that change their decision based on whether their court case will be compensated it scary, and will usually end up changing for the worse in that police officers feel they are able to do more and thus more prone to excessive force.Con’s last argument is bizarre as well. There is no connection between qualified immunity and courts ruling that police have no obligation to citizens. I urge the reader to read through the third contention and look for the warrant for how qualified immunity leads to court's ruling this way. There is no link, this argument has no impact. Peace and Love