The trouble with that logic, as the US courts figured out, was that if the police could be held accountable for misdeeds done while allegedly doing their job then so could other public officials, like judges.

For instance, the judge who refused involuntary commitment for the schizophrenic who killed the woman in Charlotte could be held accountable for their bad judgment.

Judges face almost no consequences for their decisions, and so they think it is right and proper that police should have qualified immunity from similar consequences.

It doesn't follow logically at all. The origins of judicial immunity have distinct historical roots, just as Congressional speech & debate immunity has distinct roots.

There's an argument it might effect prosecutorial immunity, presuming someone was a stickler about consistency, but it's tough to say because the justifications are arguably based on a poor historical understanding of how prosecutors took up cases.

> The trouble with that logic, as the US courts figured out, was that if the police could be held accountable for misdeeds done while allegedly doing their job then so could other public officials, like judges.

That's not trouble, it's a strong selling point. No public official should be immune from accountability for their crimes. Transparency and accountability would solve a lot of problems. Any public official uncomfortable with the idea of not being able to commit crimes and civil rights violations with impunity isn't fit for the job they have.