like this case creates a very simple question and that is what exactly did my client do that the defendant jodi could have observed that would justify and make a reasonable for him to try to kill her that's the ultimate question here there has to be something we can point to that my client did or said that makes it reasonable for the for the defend in this case to try to kill her and i asked him that during his deposition and if the answer was she reached and she made two specific threatening statements the fact that you reached as deemed admitted and that's fine and it's very possible that you did ok so let's just not dispute that she reached but what did you reach for the exit request to admit is admit that you reached your hands toward the waistband of your pants you reached not in not in a pocket your head doesn't disappear it goes toward your waist ba she never said those things and it's clear on the recordings that you never said those things but more importantly this appeal for purposes of what the facts are have to be and the light most favorable to the front so my client denies th tell by listening to the video there's something there is again there are some screws loose that's pretty clear but at what point does she do something that says you now get to kill me and you know what let's let's do a little bit of let's do this exercise let's pretend like don't you didn't have a patch do we still think it's reasonable for somebody to try to kill a woman who's walking towards you disobeying orders and reaching towards her waistband you don't see a deadly weapon you have no idea if she's got a weapon you she reasonably they're asked to be a reasonable it's as if it's reasonable for a law enforcement officer it's the same test that you and i would have if we use force if we're scared for our lives and use of a firearm and shoot somebody repeatedly and let's say kill them or appeal so it comes down to what's clearly established for you to get a reversal here what case do you think is the best case clearly establishing that i know it's not going to be identical but this general factual scenario is a constitutional violation that would we get you over the qualified immunity earl it versus rogers is i mean we can go up from a higher level gra case i don't believe there was a hand movement if that's really i mean i guess that ultimately is the question before the court which again has to fall into the reasonableness case law that says that listen this court which is  enough is reaching for your waistband and nothing else and remember the officer testified that reaching wasn't enough it was that reaching in conjunction with two very threatening statements which she did not make death to america scholar that the defense attorney has and knows how to argue exactly what my what if i really was thinking at the time but i asked him explicitly under oath why did you shoot or what were you scared of and it was the reaching and junction with two threatening statements that he never made that you never make so without those threatening statements and i understand i'm just self quick and judge davis people ask me about this when you reach and you're not listening you're walking towards and yeah that could be viewed as as i guess it could be viewed as a resistance and not to use deadly force is that really what we expect from our police officers i think they should be held to a higher standard than you and i yet if you and i did this we'd be  but immunity does come into play obviously but so does reasonableness and what we've completely lost in the weeds and i think all over the country is reasonable we just accept that when officers use an extreme level of deadly force we just accept it and why i actually argue this and mr green pointed out that the police officers have an obligation to protect us and that's why they get this heightened protection but no they don't have an obligation to protect us they don't have an obligation to do anything for us but it's also something that the courts have made abundantly clear they don't have to protect us they don't have to protect our kids while in school even if an officer is appointed to get school they don't have to was that that's just i'm talking about what it is that law enforcement does have to do which is literally nothing and the and the protection that they got at the school was a reference to the park and school shooting where there was a police officer assigned to a school and even haven't talked about the st amendment claim yes you said correctly that there's a factual dispute about whether the what she said at the end before she was shot and you correctly said that because there's a dispute in looking at the excessive force we have to take your client's version of the facts which is that she didn't say those things of but it seems like a person in retaliation claim depends on her saying those things so it's just it's officer pardon pardon my bluntness oh i didn't report and wide under oath and said that she didn't say those things to justify his actions but we have a recording and she never said those things she just did and his own testimony is that it was those those threatening statements not offensive statements or threatening statements in conjunction with reaching it made them for full for his life this needs to be undertaken from the perspective of a hypothetical reasonable less reasonable officer it's an objective test and so deputy gauge is subjective motivation as can be gleaned from his deposition testimony to the extent that it can be is not what informs the assessment of reasonableness for this case it is a reasonable miss standard that governs the use of deadly force and this court's cases are clear about how that reasonable the standard applies in this type of case and the in this court's cases and been consistent since at least the young case in one thousand nine hundred and five the standard that's relevant is that it's reasonable for an officer to use deadly force if the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of that force poses a threat of serious harm and furthermore there is such a reasonable belief when a non cooperative subject a movement that is consistent with reaching for a weapon when they reach for something that is out of the officers line of sight so what would you say mr green is undisputed about the action actual got back into his vehicle and began to back away from in some important context for all of this is that this encounter occurred to begin with because one upon her vehicle stopped shortly before midnight in an active travel way on highway ninety so it was dark they were in an active traffic lane of the highway and he began to back away from her and then stopped was vehicle got out and again instruc immunity rioter absence of one visible was she is that part of the factual record so i don't believe that there was that position testimony to that point but it is i think clear visible most of the time i don't know if he's indicating that part of the case law talks about what the person was wearing when they're reaching how reasonable was it for the officer not to fear that there might be a weapon oh i southwick st i want to address a few points that mr grimm made number one the object of versus objective test that's meant to make it a stronger test not a weaker test the point of that is to say that you're not a lot of just tell somebody and say well i was scared because look at that scary pair of shoes he's wearing which is completely ridiculous and subjective there has to be an object of to say that an officer who knows but really knows that there's no threat unless certain things are present to then say well even though he knew this wasn't a threat an objective person would so therefore even though this guy knew it wasn't a threat it just it just doesn't seem to make sense another point that image is the non cooperative subject this was not a subject this was rendering eight again a very funny way of rendering aid but rendering aid she was not under arrest for burglary she was not being detained for anything he was supposedly there to help which is what we want our police to be there for the the biggest thing i it disputed she testifies that she had her fingers up and and that she was also holding a cigarette so his on again we got to kind of put the testimony together in conjunction with that request to admit number one his own testimony as you c the cigarette number two she said she was giving him the finger right before she got shot so her hand you can't give somebody the finger in front of you know you can have your finger up and reach for your waistband so you can put it all together but it is certainly disputed that you reach behind her back that was component as far as you know seeing a gun and knowing that he had a gun out anybody who's ever looked at had lights at night time you can't see anything she didn't say he had a gun she didn't say she saw gun he didn't announce that he had a gun if he would have she's had three bombs it sixty two of her transcript and then the last thing is moving towards the vehicle and reaching towards the waist the question is when in conjunction to being shot those two things happened assuming that if any again that's not something that's been in the request to admit it's not something that testified to the question here is and this is something again that my client just my client says she was walking running the cars so that's not even really it's just that she wasn't walking towards him while he shot her the question here is how soon before going to shut does that happen that's extremely important because this court again and little bear county a two five minutes later he tells her it's insane and there's nothing in the record from the defendant's perspective that that puts it right right together i only have a few seconds left so i just want to make a concluding point and that is that i touched on this before i get it perhaps a little bit too emotional but this is something that i think should be close to all of our hearts and that is that we need to hold law enforcement accountable i understand that i'm i'm in texas but at some point in time we have to look at officers and say this is too much this is just too much you pull up behind a woman who did nothing wrong she doesn't have a weapon on her she doesn't threaten you you