Whether an objective police officer could have believed it reasonable to shoot a person who had warrants for his arrest, had locked the doors and raised the windows of his vehicle, had verbally and physically refused to comply with police commands to turn off and exit his vehicle, while the person was in the driver's seat of his vehicle revving the vehicle's engine and spinning the vehicles tires and one officer was partially inside the vehicle close to an open door, when other officers were nearby outside the vehicle

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Tavis Crane refused to comply with police commands to turn off his car and submit to arrest on warrants, including a prior charge of evading arrest. Officer Roper entered Crane’s vehicle trying to prevent him from fleeing as Crane pressed the accelerator causing his car’s engine to rev and tires to spin as the car swayed. Officer Roper warned Crane he would shoot him if he did not stop the engine. During this chaotic struggle, Crane’s vehicle twice drove over another officer. Officer Roper shot Crane to stop the danger his actions posed. In two cases this Court found no violation of clearly established law and reversed lower courts that failed to grant qualified immunity to officers who fired upon suspects driving cars who had begun to flee or were preparing to flee. Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 196-97 (2004); Plumhoffv. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 780 (2014). The Fifth Circuit committed the errors this Court corrected in Brosseau and Plumhoff and the Fifth Circuit refused to correct the errors despite the criticism of Judge James C. Ho and six other Circuit Judges. The questions presented are: 1. Whether an objective police officer could have believed it reasonable to shoot a person who had warrants for his arrest, had locked the doors and raised the windows of his vehicle, had verbally and physically refused to comply with police commands to turn off and exit his vehicle, while the person was in the driver’s seat of his vehicle revving the vehicle’s engine and spinning the vehicles tires and one officer was partially inside the vehicle close to an open door, when other officers were nearby outside the vehicle. u 2. If so, whether it would have been obvious to every objective police officer on February 1, 2017, that the driver posed no serious threat to life that warranted shooting the driver to stop a threat of harm.