It's fine when used properly. When acting in good faith, officers, just like any company employee, should generally not be held liable.

However, if they are not acting in good faith, or their actions deviate from good practice, then much like a chemical company employee dumping something toxic out into the environment, then yes they should face personal civil and criminal liability.

For example, if there's an active shooter, and the police shoot and kill him, I think most people would agree that that's acceptable, and the family of the shooter should not have grounds to sue over the shooter's death.

If the police walk up and shoot your dog for no reason, that's unacceptable and they should absolutely face personal liability.

Per the article:

"After reviewing all of the evidence in this matter a determination was made that actions of the officers didn't generate criminal liability because they were acting in good faith," the office said in a statement to The Post.

I hope the court disagrees, but I'm not going to hold my breath.