Did the Second Circuit commit legal error when it granted qualified immunity to the police officer

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did the Second Circuit commit legal error when it granted qualified immunity to the police officer when: a. the officer’s testimony about being shot at is a lie, contradicting the objective facts; being shot at was a physical impossibility because the gun was pointing at the deceased as stated in the autopsy (the wadding and shell casing were in the deceased’s abdomen and in the shotgun wound) at the time of the shooting and the witnesses (including the officer) state that only one shot was fired from the shotgun; there was no second ejected shell in the vicinity of the deceased and the casing was still in the breach from the shot; b. Did not strike the officer’s testimony for untruthfulness; c. Said court found a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm when; 1. the deceased did not at any time threaten anybody and always pointed the gun barrel either in the air (in the ready position) or at himself and; 2. The officer admitted he could see that the gun slide and therefore the direction of the gun barrel, based on the objective evidence of the autopsy and the eyewitnesses (the shotgun wound, slugs, wadding, etc. were in the deceased Petitioner’s abdomen), indicates that the gun barrel was pointed at the Deceased Petitioner Jessie Rose and away from the officer and bystanders; 3. the eyewitnesses state that they felt safe and were not threatened; 4. The officer orders the person to stand, then shoots at him and misses, then orders him to drop ii the gun and then while the deceased Jessie Rose is removing the gun strap over his head, shoots him in his left hand, causing the shotgun to jerk and discharge into the abdomen of the Petitioner; 5. all the deceased did was stand, turn and try to remove the gun; 6. The deceased had committed no crime in Utica (shooting a gun in a park in Utica is at most a violation) except possessing an altered shotgun, which was not known until after the shooting. Should the court consider the five minutes before the shooting when the Deceased was behaving erratically, shooting a gun in a large empty park (circa 1/2 mile long and about 500 feet wide at this point) at the ground and at the trees, away from the residences and people, apparently mad at his girlfriend for not appearing (again) for an agreed scheduled rendezvous, which is an indication that the deceased needed a mental evaluation and that this was a mental health pickup? Did the Second Circuit commit legal error when, after the deceased had been sitting on the slide harmlessly for five minutes, in the next three seconds before the shooting the officer conversed with the witnesses, then swung his car around over the curb, leapt from the car, recklessly drew his gun and charged into the park with a drawn gun based solely on an identification of the feet of a person sitting on a slide, while shouting commands at the back of the Deceased and within seconds is shooting at the deceased rather than waiting 30 seconds for backup to arrive instead of first using a megaphone to determine if the decedent would drop the gun peacefully? iii Did the behavior of the officer violate the mental health pick up regulation of the Utica police, which require that a dialogue be set up and the person talked to if initially there was no imminent threat of harm to the officer or bystanders while the Deceased was harmlessly seated on a slide for five minutes before the incident? Do the facts stated above create a claim for excessive force under the United States Constitution and defeat qualified immunity? Does merely standing, turning and possessing a gun (the admitted facts) under the Second Amendment in the presence of a police officer create a qualified immunity for the police officer? Was it legal error to consider a shooter threat continuing when the deceased had been harmlessly sitting on a slide for five minutes?