With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". situation he confronted.’ ” Id. at 367 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)). Particularly, the contours of De Boise’s right to be free from excessive force must be so sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would know that the multiple tasings under the circumstances were a violation of that right. See Roberts v. City of Omaha, 723 F.3d 966, 972 (8th Cir.2013). Although we have determined that non-violent, non-fleeing subjects have a clearly established right to be free from the use of tasers, see Brown, 574 F.3d at 499-500, we have yet to determine whether a violent subject, acting aggressively toward officers, has a clearly established right to be free from multiple tasings. See Clark v. Ware, 873 F.Supp.2d 1117, 1123 (E.D.Mo.2012) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, in 2008, case law related to the use

A: holding that the court could not determine as a matter of law that the repeated use of a taser on a subject that was physically resisting the police violated a clearly established right as of november 2009
B: holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established
C: holding that clearly established law is construed as supreme court or tenth circuit decisions on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts
D: holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established
A.