What kind of fallacy is this?

"The current cry is hold police accountable. I truly believe police would do a far better job if courts actually held criminals accountable."

Appears to me to be an opinion.

Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity.

“Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan .

In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), the Supreme Court held that federal government officials are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court reasoned that "the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority." With regard to certain government officials, including the President, prosecutors, and similar officials, the Court upheld absolute immunity. 

Obviously, and factually, holding government officials accountable is hardly a "current" cry. Unfortunately, the high court as well as police fraternities' have restricted the legal ramifications for such official abuse of power. 

Here the claimant prefaces their opinion with "I believe" which disqualifies it as a fallacy. It is merely a personal belief or valid statement. Furthermore, the belief as stated is that the police would do a better job if held accountable. Great! Can they back it up? It would be equally valid to press further for the basis of that belief.

To syllogize the claim:

Qualified immunity has led to gross abuse, discrimination against minorities, and poor performance in law enforcement. (support?)

Qualified immunity as a practice has been upheld by the Supreme Court

Therefore to encourage better law enforcement performance qualified immunity should either be eliminated, appealed, or more tightly regulated. ( Valid claim)

Oops, got me! I missed the switcheroo at the end. By deceptively shifting the argument to "criminals" being held accountable instead of police it becomes a shifting the blame claim. However, criminals are held accountable. That is indisputable. Now, to what extent may be arguable, but as it is it becomes a sneaky tu quoque whatboutism or shifting the blame fallacy.

Eqivocation??

Opinion, there's no argument because there's no 'reasoned justification' of the viewpoint.

In real life, you'd ask the person to clarify the points (e.g. what is meant by 'accountability', for instance).