throughout the nation left his home left his family to protect and serve the community in which he lives as we all know like most police officers he carries because duty bound to investigate crimes and confront people who are dangerous and at times have no respect for the law or the officers who are attempting to enforce the law on that shift in the early morning hours of november th two thousand and sixteen was in the car he approached and saw saw in fact that there was opened the passenger door identified himself as a police officer gave clear commands to mr dominate it keep his hands on the is now d what many on the passenger seat he had gotten and his hands the passenger door open one floyd outside the vehicle and dragging as it accelerates in two thousand and eighteen the u s supreme court said clearly we don't do that when we talk about analyzing and passing opinions on all five immunity to sell a court said we're  optional it's mandatory and the district judge get exactly what the so says you can't do says basically i'm going to put reasonableness in the hands of that your rate and i'm not going to to address head on ali in both cases the u s supreme court said that for a lot of be clearly established it has to be a case were officer acting under similar circumstances was helped that's a quote piece of this but then some of us on multiple occasions basically says the jury can do anything here the jury can find for the officers the jury conspired against the officers we're not going to decide on this on the point that it not only doesn't hold but there is a th amendment violation certainly the dissent holds that there is no th amendment violation but but the case also makes clear that speed of the vehicle is not determin e and i would imagine by the way that if the issue was what was the trajectory of the vehicle in other words they had an awkward computer we knew it was going thirty five miles per hour but the officer said the vehicle was coming towards us but there was tire marks it's just that the vehicle was going away from that and i would imagine that the majority i'm going solace when i cared about speed anymore it would have cared about the project or just at the at the heart of it the issue isn't this fact that fact it's the danger and how the vehicles being in use well i don't know if the car wasn't moving when he got into the car and according to  about after the majority talks about the speed of the minivan that that officer why it was and the court says this it says other factors identifying graham would support a perfect it in favor of the defendants here as well that into that formulation of the well i can i'm hard pressed to it to imagine a threat that is as dire five for a police officer as being stopped in a moving car just as well being taken by a criminal with the passenger door open and no seat belt laws and i think in the casella case the supreme court when faced with a different scenario but a lot of the same arguments that would apply here you know recognize that he's required to do that or is he supposed to do what the district court suggests stay there abit chaps maybe holster is here and gonna try to use answer by that point he's going forty two miles per hour and he's involved in the in what could be a fatal car crash for officer gruber there is no clearly established law that requires them to do that and i ask this court to look at wilkinson which tell that there was no th amendment violation where our car was driven slowly but in a way to it was dangerous and the cases that we cite in are opening just two thousand seven hundred and thirty six were many other circuits have decided that when a car is being operated dangerously even if it's that the officer was in harm's way that he was facing a threat of serious bodily injury when the car started moving with him half in and half out isn't that the key difference in g seconds as the car is leaving he's half in half out it isn't the idea of of i have immunity to protect him when he has to make a split nd decision when it's certainly possible is facing unit immediately lost control and became incapacitated after he was shot and you can see that from the video as soon as he shot me hunches over to the right side onto the center console and he loses control of the right after that closed and hear officer groover was in this strange position where is his left knee needs reaching into the car is left and he was on the seat his right leg was outside the car especially dragging on the street and then the car took off and that does i guess the question for you is just that resents quite a different situation then again dollars case in terms of just telling us what officer trigger the vehicle had already been moving in other words he did not fire the shots until the vehicle began so leave the spot that right wrecked your honor the vehicle had just barely started moving oxygen at least one second after  and i think though they may respond as the point on the other side your friend on the other side's argument as i understood it was did the distinction may be an issue of how fast the vehicle is traveling is not u faster vehicle presented could present more danger than a slower moving one here the officer is not just sitting there he's he's half in and half out and so i think the argument on the other side is at that point the speed of the vehicle once we know moving the exact speed isn't as central as it was in exhaust and that's the difference between the two cases the do your own or that how fast the vehicle was traveling is absolutely a significant factor into  on that because in gonzales the speed of the distance wasn't indicative of a threat of bodily injury to the officer i mean certainly an officer be afraid being an unwitting a kind of you can't honestly say that if you're lying across the seat of a car with your feet out your body and you're not going to have some concern of bodily harm once that car starts moving there is some potential threat you're on her on the say that there is mr johnson your owner's only thing that is all a sport with tell an officer who is reading it or educated on it would be that a jury might find an a violation and a jury might not find a violation based on all specs that's not clearly established law but engrams all of us faced with nobody camera footage and officers that the court was concerned with flat out lying about their perception of the threat because all those painted a possible picture were officer of why it's just sitting comfortably in the passenger seat with the door close meandering at three or five mph that possibility doesn't exist in this case based on the body camera footage that we're seeing officer river was faced with an imminent threat and my colleague talks about immediate threat standard is imminent threat it doesn't have to man it's manifest itself