Do you believe government actors should have immunity when they are doing their jobs?

For now, they have qualified immunity which basically means that except for cases of obvious violations (like a detective impersonating your public defender to later use your statements against you in court) where they are not protected; in not-so-obvious violations, the lawsuit against the government actor (not just police; but also correctional guards, CPS caseworkers, public school administration, etc.) can be dismissed without going to trial unless there is a previous case law where basically the same thing (or almost the same thing) has happened and the case law must say this conduct cannot happen again going forward. If you can't do that, the government actor is entitled to qualified immunity, which means your lawsuit against them is dismissed.

However, while I understand this doctrine is very controversial in practice, the Supreme Court has made a pragmatic choice for it: Without protection, government actors must be afraid to do what they determine is necessary out of fear of frivolous lawsuits. However, I see the DNC has made legislative efforts to curb qualified immunity or reduce the amount of protection it gives to government actors. So my question is, do you believe they should have:

• qualified immunity in it's current form;
• immunity, but less protective than qualified immunity;
• none at all.