Are the Defenders of Qualified Immunity Really Wrong?

Defenders of qualified immunity claim that in the specific cases where it has been granted, a reason e are they actually claiming that a reasonable cop could have been unsure whether this was a good thing to do or not? Or do they instead say, look, ok, yes, this case is obvious. He screwed up em it was clearly a mistake. But it's a slippery slope. You know, if we convict someone for this case, then that could set a precedent for convicting officers for more ambiguous things in the future. And so, you know, we should just draw a hard line, even though this seems clearly like he behaved in a clearly unreasonable way. Which of those two defences