Why Qualified Immunity Might be a Good Thing

The other day there was a thread regarding qualified immunity. Responses indicated that most people are against QI because they think an incompetent officer that harms someone should have to pay out of his own pocket. I agree, but QI has nothing to do with that.
This is because state law requires that the City indemnify and defend any officer in a suit related to his public duties (with some narrow exceptions). So, regardless of whether QI applies, it will be the City that pays and the officer won't pay a nickel out of his own pocket.
The reason that plaintiffs fight to strip the officer of QI is not to make him personally liable, he likely doesn't have much in the way of assets. The reason is that stripping the officer of QI is the most direct path to getting the City to open its checkbook.
So, if you think that someone harmed by an officer's wrongful actions should be compensated by the City, then QI is a bad thing.
And, if you think it is wrong that the City (and, really the taxpayer) should have to pay for an officer's blunder, then QI is a good thing.