'Qualified immunity' is described as "an affirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary act

[answerhappygod]

'Qualified immunity' is described as "an affirmative defense
which shields public officials performing discretionary
acts/functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known. Black's Law Dictionary.
Relatively recent events have led to a portrayal of 'qualified
immunity' for law enforcement [and/or correctional ] officers as a
means of avoiding the consequences of their actions. Is this an
accurate portrayal of the notion of 'qualified immunity'? Should
the United States Supreme Court [ or the legislative branches of
federal and/or state government] do away with 'qualified immunity'?
If so, why? If not, why not? Provide a brief synopsis of a case
[from a source other than the textbook] in
which ‘qualified immunity’ was either granted [or denied] and
explain the court’s reasoning for its decision.