summary judgment at the district court level this case starts with a woman named elaine who says i had a leg over nine hundred and eleven that she saw some neighbors some black neighbors was and i hate to say it this way but it basically had three magic words he had the st two black male and he had a gun and at that point officer richardson takes off and  they'd come to the area where their guest pouch and a woman is out in the street and contrary to what the district courts parent and it's very clearly what the listen to the on watch the tape this woman says one person went around the corner one shirt and she's pointing at her the shirt and black pants and then she says black blue and richardson takes up there's no indication to the two people ok there's no indication that anybody other than this black heavyset person in a white t shirt may have been involved in any kind of criminal activity street and actually going to go get a soda or on their way back to where they live but there's nothing the way they were walking there's nothing they did that was suspicious they get that officer richardson stops and  is another disputed area the district court said that despite all of the sort of richardson's testimony that his initial approach to their own was as it was likely require less as opposed to a command he testified to that he later during the cross examination said no i guess maybe it was a command but the district court took that away you can see it on the video and i'm told that i could play  staff reasonable suspicion and if not why not ok st of all i don't believe so because there's no indication that those two people were involved in any criminal activity or any criminal activity w them if anything if there had been some type of an assault and either bob this person with a white t shirt and black pants their court potentially big dogs as opposed to somebody that was involved in this three person mobile probable cause is what is yes i mean and it's less than ironic that we talk about arguable probable cause in a profession that argues for a living that but that aside we're talking about what a reasonable police officer hensley for sixty nine you was to twenty one prior to that time you could not make a terrorist based on a completed criminal after because that was left for regular police investigation any felony count now even in the judge's description of what he thought the tension lee criminally had occurred prior to this he lists misdemeanors and that clearly isn't covered by hand so that the idea that they can make a reasonable that they can make a reasonable stop based on a misdemeanor that already occurred i think flies in the face of what a terry stop this is a terrorist is generally based upon this idea this was not a minimal intrusion it started up as a mere request and i think that's clear as i pointed out earlier from from the audio itself he says yeah yeah you guys and then at that point reasonable suspicion here they don't have me this is just like saying anybody in a crime in a high crime area can get ordered to the ground because you're high crime areas because they don't know what crime occurred they don't even know if a crime occurred they don't take the talking about it and minimal intrusion and i dare say anybody that's had a gun pointed out him and been screened out to get on the planes and then been handcuffed face down into the pavement would call that a minimal intrusion well there's terry because it's a completed misdemeanor it cannot be terry because there is not reasonable suspicion reasonable suspicion has to both be purport for this type of a terrorist type of criminal activity and a criminal danger and there's nothing to indicate that these two gentlemen posed any kind of imminent danger you know walking normally they just want to get as they wait the police all star up and it it it's it's this different say a direct stop versus hey can i talk to you is there a difference there between certain what whether or not it's  of a request and then when they blew it off that's when he made it made a demand and so you're saying when he changed when that office and then later said no i guess it wasn't reclast you're saying that  that's and impeachment kind of thing the jury and jury would have to decide whether he was she mentioned as a request or his later testimony was cracked that he meant it as a command and watch the video and watch the video because i think those things go hand in hand now i'm not going to address the issue of the city because i think it's very clear in the briefing that if there was a constitutional violation then th of and radical idea so i'm going to leave that up to the bridge but the idea here is it got transformed into an arrest without probable cause because clearly there was no probable cause to  arrest but before that there's no reasonable basis for the stop and terry doesn't apply because that there is no particularized crime that occurred and there's a right no reasonable suspicion that these two people are dangerous at that dispatch information a weapon was reportedly seen which by the way doesn't mean that there were not of the weapons and which by the way could reasonably be a police officer to infer that there would be  potential crime they had to assume they had to make certain inferences about potential danger that they might be encountered when they responded as i mentioned the disturbance took pla holding descriptions in the aggregate were such that mr urban reasonably can be said to may actually those aggregate descriptions the individual and he arrived at that spot just movements after being directed there based could have been the rd black man book and i should parsons say that the city is mindful of the fact that there was a mistake need here but the question presented is nurit well there is no right as a matter of logic i guess there is no right to be free from the potential mistakes along is that the off the walking in in spite of the serve stop stop that seems to be kind of the moment when things ask elaine ahead which was that sufficient then to take the that but he did attempt to say stop without using any force whatsoever then he clarified to whom you were speaking saying you guys are yeah you guys and they and so when  the the other individual not the plaintiff in this particular case we need turn around and wave them off and turn at that point the search richardson gave him more stern comeon which is not anything can you say this officer richardson did make a nd set of commands stop right now stop he was not he was using his hand he was not using his gun at that point so then when he sees them continue to walk they're about to go out of view so he had to gain media control of that situation and yes it is unfortunate that he was forced to raise the gun but there are drugs weapon but it's also part of the record that when he went to start the rd person that he that had been described as the individual displaying known to have displayed that individual stopped immediately the display of a weapon may become necessary depending upon the circumstances presented to the officer if the situation is dangerous enough then a display of a weapon does not occurred obviously soonest either a request for a command was given and i want to point out too that the district court actually construed the record in the light most  can act reasonably by securing detainee or as a subject with handcuffs and weapon now they were not based brown face down as is asserted in the on that list relying on those cases i go on to point out that officer richardson left the scene as quickly as possible to go after the rd individual so he was they didn't question mr d bates or mr urban because at that point they had another lead and they needed to just maintain status quo meanwhile bystander and that bystander articulate that they were not that mr bates and mr irving were not involved in the earlier disturbance and so almost immediately prime giving her information they were released from also if he if they had started asking questions when they they had other means of investigating if they started asking questions then it would have been an arrest and they wanted to just maintain the status quo for a short time when they could and that's reasonable they wanted to get to the person who was expressly described as having carried that weapon and officer tippit was on his own he had to just never presented to the district court so i'm not sure it's appropriate to entertain it but even so if you look at that if you look at those two screen shots that quickly you'll also look at what she did as she was as richardson was pulling away he asked black and saying he has white shirt black pants she originally had said white and black peanuts and situation and then take it in context as a whole under under the queen case and in many other cases the officer was not and reasonable in believing that irvin matched aggregate description when coupled with the proximity thank you first of all you cannot strengthen reasonable suspicion by what happened later with somebody else because reasonable suspicion occurs at the time not based on  to protect people from the government from me and if i were government justice thomas and looked out qualified immunity would see severe skepticism and the supreme court keeps dodging the issue of whether help protects the government from its people as opposed to look at the protections we should be getting from our government and i think under those circumstances look if you've watched the video and you watch what's happening to these people  you cannot say this is a minimal intrusion if you've ever had a gun pointed out to you and you're young you're blocking your mail if you're young and you're blocking your mail whether you've had a gun pointed