Whether a fact question on the 'deadliness' of force can impose a heightened deadly force standard that constrains the Fourth Amendment's objective test for qualified immunity during a high-speed pursuit

After a crash filled 20-minute high-speed car chase— caught on video by police helicopter—Javier Ambler II died while resisting being handcuffed due in part to an imperceptible heart condition. Video shows Nissen used a modicum of force for less than 90 seconds to assist the first arriving deputies handcuff Ambler in the prone position. Ambler stated he could not breathe in the scuffle, but force stopped when the handcuffs clicked. Nissen was denied qualified immunity. The questions presented are: 1. Can a fact question on the “deadliness” of force impose a heightened deadly force standard that “constrains” the Fourth Amendment’s objective test—essentially requiring officers to forfeit immunity unless they can prove it would have also been appropriate to shoot the suspect ? 2. After a suspect leads police on a 20-minute highspeed car chase, can a reasonable officer use 90 seconds of soft-hand controls in the prone position to handcuff that suspect—reasonably making a split-second presumption that the suspect is dangerous and his claimed medical emergency is a ploy? 3. Did the law clearly establish that soft-hand controls and a taser—used to effectuate handcuffing in the prone position—became unlawful the instant the suspect stated, “I can’t breathe”, when no prior precedent in this Court or the Fifth Circuit ever contemplated that such a suspect had just led police on an outrageous high-speed chase?