Should Courts allow qualified immunity to protect governments and their employees in spite of evidence?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Should Courts allow qualified immunity to protect governments and their employees in spite of evidence only because it is the first of such violations? Do governments and their employees really need the warning of a previous case to know the difference between and wrong/misconduct? Should Courts allow qualified immunity to protect governments and their employees in spite of evidence against habeas corpus or false imprisonment or other obvious crimes? Should government employees and officials be able to just rely on qualified immunity even though they should be able to recognize that their actions or the directives they receive are plainly criminal? Should Courts allow qualified immunity to protect governments and their employees rather than looking at criminal issues per se, such as a kidnapping done by a non-government official or employee. Should statutes of limitations and deadlines and other technicalities that apply to governments and to the purpose of protecting governments and their employees be applied when the conduct of the government employee or official was actually criminal and wouldn't be applicable, for instance, the statute of limitations and technical requirements on kidnapping is not the same as the statute of limitations ? And should the Courts allow government officials' and employees' dragging their feet and the eventual court cases dismissing such cases because of qualified immunity or any other reason or technicality be used to allow a statute of limitations for a felony such as kidnapping or false imprisonment and conspiracy of such to be regarded as elapsed because of the interference with dereliction, dragging feet, inappropriate or lack of action, etc., and for the purpose of blocking that criminal action is taken appropriately? Should Courts allow qualified immunity to protect governments and their employees rather than apply a higher standard to such as government officials and employees? Should the U. S. Supreme Court overturn precedents that have favored qualified immunity to protect governments and their employees even in spite of evidence, without doing the same for the persons whose rights were violated by government officials and/or employees? Sure, MPD wanted to accommodate the interests of the subjects of the federal complaint against Bishop Loverde, et al., however should the Courts accommodate the abuse of discretion by government officials and employees, just because the abuse of discretion was carried out by officers and the like, if such abuse of discretion has nothing to do with carrying out the intent of the law but rather accommodation of certain powerful groups who have the police in their pocket? Should the U. S. Supreme Court not overturn abuse of immunity in all cases when presented to it to end abuse of discretion and violation of citizens' rights, after all, isn't that the true intent of having a government rather than protecting priests from criminal consequences or protecting the interests of powerful entities from such nuisances as some citizen they thought could be dispensed with by calling in markers at the government? Wouldn't it be the U. S. Supreme Court to put an end to all such corruption? Shouldn't the U. S. Supreme Court revisit Immunity Defense, Qualified-immunity, and all laws that grant immunity to governments and/or their employees that are otherwise written to keep governments and their employees from being sued or suffering the consequences of their actions. Should it be necessary to require that governments and their employees are warned by virtue of a previous action wherein the plaintiff had his rights violated or suffered criminal misconduct, etc., to give that government and its employees a second chance at violating another citizen's Constitutional rights, or do other harm? Shouldn't such governments and their employees be sufficiently qualified to do their work and educated and in possession of personal integrity that they can b