Two type's of people have been promoting the fallacy that the Immunity ruling protects the POTUS from acts like murder, armed robbery, etc if they committed it while in office: Disingenuous fucks or morons.
I'm not sure I understand your post.
From the dissent in the Trump case:
>>>The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. . . . The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.<<<
Are you asserting that the dissent and those who agree with them are "disingenuous fucks or morons"?
If you are referring to private acts by a president, neither the majority or dissent assert that presidents have immunity for private acts.