Eric Wenzel, et al. v. Carl Storm

Did the Eighth Circuit err in holding that Respondent Officer Storm was entitled to qualified immunity on the Wenzel Petitioners’ claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment for Officer Storm’s fatal shooting of Mr. Wenzel in that Officer Storm possessed on his duty belt a baton, a pepper spray device and could see Mr. Wenzel’s hands swinging at his side, not possessing or holding in his hands any weapons; his hands were empty; Mr. Wenzel, unarmed, and his hands can be seen exiting his vehicle and walking towards Officer Storm to the time he was fatally shot by Officer Storm as the video was recorded by Officer Storm’s dash camera, and the holding violates this Honorable Court’s long-standing precedent in that a seizure is unlawful when it is “more intrusive than necessary” Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 504 (1983) and directly conflicts with several sister circuits rulings also addressing qualified immunity of the shooting of an unarmed suspect: Lytle v. Bexar Cty., Tex., 560 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2009) (qualified immunity denied; also was a video relating to the incident); Floyd v. City of Detroit, 518 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2008) (qualified immunity denied); A. K. H. by & through Landeros v. City of Tustin, 837 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2016) (qualified immunity denied); Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002)?

Did the Eighth Circuit err in holding that Respondent Officer Storm was entitled to qualified immunity on the Wenzel Petitioners’ claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment for Officer Storm’s fatal shooting of Mr. Wenzel in that