Officer Friendly shoots and seriously wounds Bill who is seen running down the street armed with a knife swinging it at people and telling them to "die, pig, die." Bill sees the Officer, and charges him right before he is shot. Bill pleads guilty to the charges and then sues Officer Friendly for violating his (Bill's) 4th Amendment right to be free from "unreasonable seizures." Officer Friendly's attorney says that the officer is entitled to "qualified immunity." What are the elements of this defense?

Was there a violation of the arrestee's constitutional rights?

Was the right "clearly established" given the facts and circumstances of particular situation involved?

Could any reasonable officer who was in the same situation as the officer who is being sued find that officer had acted reasonably?

All of the Above