duration of the flight it's a factor but there are still high speed flyweight across property uncontrolled driving in the neighborhood there are homes presumably people in the homes i mean the the the role of it is risk right whether the risk is because you're driving at an officer or the risk is because you're driving at somebodies house they're still risk r not on appeal as to excessive force in what transpired earlier that's correct your honor we're here focus on the shots and i think the relevant inquiry is to look at at the time when he fired the shots what a reason the officers were to believe but the reason why i an officer who were just physically abused him in the situation and when we tell him the fact that broke my heart and howard also testified that they could see no bystanders in the area when thompson was feeling i think that also supports the fact that there's a genuine here he had already crashed into one officer's car and wrong with with with that officer and person trying to get out of the car and then is it going around that car and at high speeds by at risk it's that you seem to be saying it could establish that if there's no risk to anybody else you can't shoot have you assume the way an undisputed fact which is this is a residential area and he's driving at a high res across why is it unreasonable for an officer to believe that that there are people inside homes at night in a residential neighborhood that is i don't think that's because i don't think there's a dispute of fact about this up i thought he was driving at a high rate of speed across the warrants not because shots had been fired but because he'd just been chased around the car or been hit by a b down the road fired continue with shots afterwards is irrelevant to the question of the danger posed by mr thompson and that the police officers did not pursue him after firing shots the next were at the driver the victim was calling in that if the police didn't back away he was going to shoot the pursuit the sniper shots that is there has been an howard points to bruce over says haugen a case that was explicitly limited in its holding because the events in question took place before this court decided to bring up versus ross i have to say i just didn't understand graham had to say is it isn't the whole purpose of wellfleet immunity to put officers in a position where they're deciding whether the use deadly force or just that he did it was just a degree of worse they don't there's a hazy border there where it's not helpful for society for courts to be doing monday morning quarterbacking like that right it may be wrong or that in person pursued there was a hazy border because abraham hadn't been decided yet it would have were told to be prepared to address the molineaux case and obviously the core question opposing counsel quite a bit about molineaux and i so i'd like to start with that point get involved in this case was not clearly established and i submit to the court that molino is stark proof of the fact that the r clearly established here at the time that officer howard  a determining whether the right was clearly established is based upon the officers knowledge and wes he did what what legal knowledge he should be charged with not the factual circuit not specifically the factual circumstances then let me try to explain it this way i believe we are talking about the first prong of the qualified community analysis was there a constitutional violation i believe the courts are directed to can to consider the totality of the circumstances and i believe it's clear to also responsible for the escalation of the violence well did he do when he entered he got into the car he drove away in any period rapid speed he struck another police car for which he was convicted of this case great so what what relevance could it have what could add for you to say oh he's getting away with the evidence i'll shoot it that can't be your position  right to the officer yes so even if there is even if that at the moment when he's reaching over to the passenger side i then make sure you can we can create or even crash into the car immediate threat if we take the hypothetical that you just throws trash crouse it's a very significant factor that is present in this case your hypothetical did not involve any threat of harm at that point writing away all this happened in a matter still seconds the we're not talking about an extended period of time like we have in this courtroom to think about these circumstances and tense situations involving situations and qualified immunity doctrine exists to protect the officer if he happens to make a wrong judgment about those kinds of things now officer sorry just fantasy but cluing that there was a community in the mall in next case the supreme court little bit the person case which i think is a very close factual paradigm to what we have emphasis on the idea that the constitutional right can not be pitched at too high a level of abstraction it has to be very specific and concrete tied to the specific facts of the case not that you have to have a case exactly on if worse but you have to be able to look at the specific factual context and answer the question was it clearly established that deadly force could not be used in those circumstances because there's a whole complex of factors and we have to look at the complex of factors and then asked that very fact bear on facts specific question right right your honor and i think very clearly establish