Whether the Tenth Circuit's application of White v. Pauly to a 2016 shooting under Qualified Immunity constitutes a permissible legal interpretation of clearly established law

In the grant of Qualified Immunity, the Tenth Circuit applied Q: the 2017 vacatur of Pauly I by White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. @ 78 to the 2016 shooting of Mr. St. George by Lakewood Police. On 2016 "...at the time of the violation..'." Pauly I was July 31, clearly established law. On January 9, 2017, Pauly I was no longer clearly established law. Is this a permissible violation 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014)? of Tolan v. Cotton/. In the grant of Qualified Immunity, the Tenth Circuit determined Q: the disputed fact — a cellphone call and blocked Caller ID by police, without more, is an acceptable stand-in for knock-andannounce — in the light most favorable to moving party Lakewood Is this a permissible violation of Tdlah v. Cotton, PD. 512 U.S. 650, 657 (2014) and Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 937, 931, 934 (1995)? In the shooting of Mr. St. George, the Lakewood Police actors Q: held the subjective belief that he was "coming out for a fight" and engaged in what they believed •to:.be Mutual Combat with him. By failing to give any warning — indeed no officer ever shouted any identification, command, or warning prior to shooting him — this conduct permits both parties to be wrong-doers. Because the LPD Defendants could be found as wrong-doers by engaging in Mutual Combat, and Mr. St. George's conviction could be permitted to stand in such a scenario, are Mr. St. George's claims against LPD barred by Heck v. Humphrey? Is deliberate, reckless conduct ttbafe amendment violation? ii