fortune of missing a day of school it happened to be a day that the some twenty plus federal agents working for the internal revenue service can you think were familiar with the fact you do zero in on what the evidence is but the only other witness aside from the federal officers who are present who either have no recollection because they were focused on the house what was going on with master tech way or as to agent hawks in particular who was having an interference reaction back up just a second at the bottom of page five thirty six of the excerpts speech sixty five of the reporters numbering  discussion about the gun it's a little bit confusing and i'll grant you that but we have independent testimony from his father who's in the process of being arrested willingly if you will because he's been called by agent jack koski he's up on the second floor of his residence when he received a telephone call cell phone calls made at the same time that another agent with the remote control that they the father agrees that he will willingly come downstairs and appear at the front door and submit to arrest any further following that's when the agents are proceeding toward the front door and they meet tackling the father at the front door and place them under arrest he testified that his deposition which was taken on terminal island and which is part of the record in this case on page testimony you just gave us from the father doesn't say it was pointed at the kid well there's one on the wrong foot when you have your gun drawn it just means you have it in your hand instead of your holster i understand but if you go forward  five where was the gun pointed down to the ground that's not the h or not and it appears from our interviews with her that that information she got from other sources and we were never able to find the source of there is no other independent evidence person found at a scene where an arrest is being conducted i think that the circumstances that nina found her selfie and when that arrest was going down and her detention took place are a lot more be there when they were doing a drug raid and she was really upset because the cops pulled her out of the house i think in a for child molesters the sweats she was sleeping in and barefoot greger in the garage i think they handcuff the supreme court said we were wrong because the police have an obligation to control the premises and people who may cause trouble when they're doing a search and it's but i was on the other hand i read mein exactly as you do what i was encouraged about in that case as we do have an innocent woman and it's an adult she's innocent one and mean innocent kid here innocent child here i think the standard of interfacing with an innocent child is different than here's my problem here i think if it was a sixteen year old boy i'd have no problem with putting a gun to his head to lose cops because a sixteen year old but here's the point they had already or rather they had made a special provision they knew who was in the house they had it under surveillance they knew a mom and dad in three children two girls and in this young man lived there they made  special link to make sure that they arrested mom away from the residence because her normal habit was to take it to school in the morning so the arranged to arrest her after she dropped the kids up unbeknown to anyone it turned out not to be a school day for f around that day that's the only reason he was a whole bunch but when she was arrested without incident they asked for and received a remote control opened the gates whe personally didn't know what does that what does that what effect does that have on the case i'm not sure it has any because talk at least knows that they have their remote control he knows that mom's already been arrested he knows what's going on to that extent whether somebody actually communicated to him we know the child at home we know dad's at home we don't know who else might be until his position is  reasons you know knows in fact that efron's at home or doesn't yes it does on the face of it however when i hear that testimony and i read that declaration and the gates why if he's concerned about the fact for the suspicion that this man has a gun and it's out of the have this person who is willingly submitting themselves at this point and following instructions in the middle get down on the ground then he places himself in the middle of that desire to interface with the pack him down and do these other things that is totally and if you'll bear with me i've got to go back line two between five feet five feet five foot five inches but this is a summary judgment so what's your argument as to why summary judgment should be granted when there's says he was lying on the ground and then he was put into a kneeling position but he felt the gun he's you know his testimony on the face of it isn't inherently incredible the officers have a different  weather constitutional right would have been violated on those facts that's our second inquiry and then we look at graham bersih scotter no one reasonable force and we look at a case that we decided robinson says pointing a gun at somebody without a real good reason to was more than the mere pointing of guns in those cases the agents not only pointed the gun i believe in mckenzie they placed the gun between the items of the suspect and then threatened to pull the trigger macdonald it was a nine year old put the gun directly to the nine year old had threatened to pull the trigger that didn't happen here f from ed minutes clearly during his testimony that no one during the course of an arrest of his parents so reasonable policeman would not have known he was violating their kids constitutional rights it required more than the mere pointing of guns so what i have to do now is look at mckenzie and mcdonald as opposed to placing the gun and threatening to pull the trigger that to mcdonald's doesn't make it clear to a reasonable police officers that putting a gun to the back of the head of a compliant eleven year old dripped into shirt had knowledge that an eleven year old was going to have that knowledge and an eleven year old resided in the house he did not know that effortless there that day so i thought you conceded i thought the government conceded that the people on scene per the mother's advice knew that up from the not come school the testimony in fact the mother told agent ok agents who then brought the remote in keys to the people on things fact we're here on summary judgment i don't think that from never put into evidence that agent stocks knew he was there well how would he know when to off do you know honor you know what was happening here was all in a kind of a presumption then that you know he knew he didn't know i don't know that there would be a presumption that he should have known the law that you know that you can depend on the collective knowledge of park or he lied down on his own volition and has got a gun pointed his head he's compliant he's on the ground he's got a gun pointed at his head and you're saying a reasonable police didn't threaten to pull the trigger your honor i would like one other thing if that's an argument boys i could grab them and control them with my hands and now at least one of the boys could overpower me as i suppose the girl i could have controlled at any eleven year olds they're just not that big and strong and what i'm trying to figure out is why a recent a policeman would put a gun to a kid's head and it looks to me like what the case comes down to is robinson says he can't but it's too late to do the plaintiff any good macdonald says he can't but it's a little distinguishable because the kid is nine and the cop threatens to pull the trigger on the other hand it doesn't say can i don't understand why the cop has to put the gun to the eleven year old said this kid that age you don't need to have him do what you tell him to do when you say lie down and put your hands behind your but eleven year olds are just as capable based on recent events and unfortunate events in the country in this country even year olds can kill somebody if they have a gun in their hand no problem with that but this kid went to kids in his underwear you can pretty much tell individual would go back inside the house and either attempt to retrieve the he's not inside the house and he just there comes a point where the kids outnumber you and some of them are bigger than you and then you really need them to comply with all commands but when they're smaller than you and they don't outnumber you you really don't that's why the force is arguably excessive  by pointing a gun at them and threatening to pull the trigger that was target of listening with a ball but it doesn't go the right way from your point of view well i think that it's certainly required more than the mere pointing at the gu are they trained like the f b i are in the go through the quantico training we have they go through so they get the normal training of peace officers in the federal government this is not just i don't know but that's right it was probably brought out in the in age in h gets an expert to come in to testify as to whether this was excessive course you're not under the circumstances we did in fact have an expert come in and i can't remember at this point if we presented that to his expert's report to the district or the government the gun part never happened yes ok so you wouldn't have an expert presumably coming in and saying even though you know he did put a gun to who would have been with him then and operating procedure well i believe the expert took the testimony of effort and analyzed it even assuming his facts as true ok but that's not in the record i i'm sorry your honor i tell him you there live you think there may be expert testimony in the record that says it's ok to put