ask a well trained firefighter knowing the circumstances under which he was doing this training and understanding how it was supposed to go in his experience his professional opinion basically a mall no it was a it was a training tower and he was on the third floor of the tower climbing out the window there is really no way to controlled gravity there is no way to control the fact that if something goes wrong if that he was stopped and actually he did stop yes eventually he did otherwise he wouldn't be here because he wouldn't survive down fall but once again it was the fact that it's a free fall for as many and he had no choice but to react and his initial reaction based on his training isn't occasion was to try to stop himself and try to watch what stopped him and eventually we we believe it was a safety device i don't think there should really  yes the safety the voice was there in case of any malfunction because you're trying this is the purpose of this is to become familiar with the equipment for weil and you call your point for real emergencies case where the officer who was answering the call that ninety nine percent of the time is not a legitimate call and only one percent of the time it is a legitimate call you know me going into it knowing that there's only one percent the way this device works is that the fire here is had this safety device on it was it an in service training now regular training but it training to teach him how to use the advice of the devi there for him was hidden under controlled circumstances he was not under any hurry there was no live fire there was no sense of urgency none of that this was here's a new piece of equipment we need you all to learn how to use it take your help as many times as you want watch the video take it see how it works and then practice using it that's what we're talking about this is no training like gaffney is not training lifelong in this this is putting a piece of equipment testified that he did the training as it was depicted in the video tape which is part of the record and if you watch the videotape it is slow motion out the window slow motion to brace yourself as you go out and solution anyway for purposes of safety in this situation they're learning to use the device as part of their process and in order to to a limited and unforseen circumstances also attached to a safety line contrary consuls representations to testimony is the safety line never engaged and the reason it did not engage is because he never descended fast enough the existence of the safety mine which is separate and apart from the training device what is to prevent any unforseen circumstances from parade to prevent any danger to the fire jack to view was that the device malfunctioned and did create an emergency situation so he could see his perception was he could have found to the ground and each and he also test he also way after this accident happened they preserve the device nobody touched it we had captain ones will take the device l ron go into the training tower and repel down and make sure that there was nothing wrong with have any evidence that it malfunctioned he has no issue with the self or the safety device he is confident and sure that firefighter insult us set up the safety device properly if as a trade and  the first kind of this his subjective belief correct well actually i don't believe that's the proper standard think the proper standard is the object of the belief and whether or not it's reasonable though saying that you were responding to an emergency h question of fact i mean this part was it objectively reasonable for him to think would other firefighters have felt this was an emergency situation or that his beliefs his one second firefighters would not objectively believe that this was an emergency you have to know that we had testimonies and we had testimony in the record to that effect i mean first it's not subjective because you know at this point in time it wouldn't be any firefighter hearing here's just a foid to the injury occurred while he was transferring himself when i got her no do we know exactly where the tower the injury occurred there was also testimony the process in the videotape which is what everybody was to do he went out to the third story window had first he righted himself and then you walk down the building was that he is or anything in the record challenging the safety mine for the integrity of you know for you know in effect in these two decided that they wanted to go out into this training exercise contrary to the process because he was not told to go out there and do it today belied by the fact that he wanted to go out there with guns almost himself and take care of it at that time in place when he didn't need to there was no you know there was an order to get it done but now order to get it done today nothing that he had control over in terms of how it functioned or didn't function correct during the course of the training exercise there wasn't anything he did what he consults did with respect to th particular is sometimes he said he was trying to right himself sometimes he said he would be hit with the second story window as opposed to the first third story window so hot he kicked something or hit something and trying to get it done too quickly all that went through his head and a split second inhibits his testimony which is why there's no disputing material fact that the basis for the summary judgment was his base of his testimony he agreed with all  his full gear which means about seventy five pounds of gear on top of that he's a fully grown man about two hundred pounds i think he said all of that has to be factored in when you're  story window coming out and you've got gravity working against your weight so although it may have been designed to go very slowly it just simply is not the reality of the situation because when you're walking out a third story window with that kind of weight on you you're going to did a lot of things outside of work together and he had just passed away my client is not going to throw him under the bus that's just not he's going to do some course in his mind in his view everything was done the way it should have down safety down it should have been kept off i think we have we do have to take it at face value but we also have to remind our south side we're dealing with human beings and they have human emotions and i take that into account when we're looking at and saying that it's just simply impossible that my client would have been in any type of danger i think you have to take that with a little grain of salt because he's a third floor window that there's always a possibility of something going wrong and a a very short video that might have a somebody there to tell him hey hold on a second you're supposed to do this and that and there just simply wasn't so he was relying on his experience and his relying on what he saw on that video and in his