I know far more than you do about this new area of development and what requirements are being put into system development. A case in point is this. After the Boston Red-socks won the world series there were riots going on during the celebration.The police used non-lethal weapons to break it up. A young lady got hit in the eye with a rubber pellet from a shotgun and was killed. Yes the Boston PD got sued and lost a 16 million dollar suit. Yes there is a precedent.
Did it happen in this jurisdiction? Sorry, not "precedent" as far as this court is concerned.
Is this case almost exactly like something that happened before? No? Sorry, that precedent is not "on point", i.e., does not help your case.
For example, should a police officer know that you shouldn't drive 100 MPH for miles to chase a guy for a "minor traffic violation"? Even though the officer pled guilty to vehicular homicide, "it was not clearly established at the time of the crash that Officer Homanko’s conduct ... could give rise to constitutional liability." Too bad your bystander wife is dead from his "criminally reckless driving." Look on the bright side though -- you've established a precedent that would apply for somebody else's dead wife next time. Maybe.
There are good articles from Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett, for one (I think he's on Trump's short list for the Supreme Court) discussing the abuse of "qualified immunity" here. From the first link there:
"To some observers, qualified immunity smacks of unqualified impunity, letting public officials duck consequences for bad behavior — no matter how palpably unreasonable — as long as they were the first to behave badly. Merely proving a constitutional deprivation doesn't cut it; plaintiffs must cite functionally identical precedent that places the legal question "beyond debate" to "every" reasonable officer. Put differently, it's immaterial that someone acts unconstitutionally if no prior case held such misconduct unlawful."