What is the test for tortfeasibility under the Fourteenth Amendment?

"[D]ue process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment occur only when official conduct 'shocks the conscience.'" Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, 717 F.3d 702, 707 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted). There are two standards to determine whether conduct "shocks the conscience": whether the official acted with "deliberate indifference" or whether he or she acted with a "purpose to harm," a more demanding showing. Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). To determine which standard applies, the critical question is "whether the officers had the opportunity for actual deliberation." Id. at 1138. The "purpose to harm" standard applies when the official "encounters fast paced circumstances presenting competing public safety obligations," such as when police officers are in high speed car chases or situations with active shooters. Id. at 1139. Under such circumstances, the official must make a snap judgment because of an escalating situation. Id. at 1137. In contrast, the "deliberate indifference" standard is "employed only when actual deliberation is practical," such as where "officers have ample time to correct their obviously mistaken detention of the wrong individual, but nonetheless fail to do so." Id. at 1137, 1139.