With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the use of force is not unexpectable by the master. Copeland, 403 F.3d at 932. Each of the first three criteria must be met to find that an employee acted within the scope of his employment. See Adames v. Sheahan, 233 Ill.2d 276, 330 Ill.Dec. 720, 909 N.E.2d 742, 755, 757 (2009); Bagent v. Blessing Care Corp., 224 Ill.2d 154, 308 Ill.Dec. 782, 862 N.E.2d 985, 992 (2007). Section 228 applies to' police officers and their municipal employers. See Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 674 (7th Cir. 2004). The first criterion—the acts must be of the kind the employee was employed to perform—is satisfied. Using physical force to restrain .an unruly individual is among the tasks police officers perform for the City. See Lombardi v. Range, 2003 WL 21800071, at *5 (N.D. Ill. July 23, 2003) (<HOLDING>). This conclusion does not change simply

A: holding that a mere statement that the appellant is a prevailing party satisfies eligibility requirement for jurisdictional purposes
B: holding that handcuffing satisfies this requirement
C: holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional
D: holding that severe recklessness satisfies scienter requirement citation omitted
B.