from the united states district court of the north and district there the district court granted defendants a police motion for summary judgment specifically as to the estate's federal claims  more and more specifically the excessive force excessive force claim brought pursuant to the fourth amendment as well as the substandard due process claim pursuant to the fourteenth amendment these clee these claims arose i know on appeal there's two principle issues that must be decided the first of which is whether triable issues of fact exists as to the reasonableness of the shooting such that each array could  reasonably find in favor for the state if you need a so don't know and the second of which is whether deputy true should be afforded the defense of qualified immunity now this court has held specifically in one circuit has held that in the context of excessive force cases the granting of motions for summary judgment should be done sparingly and the reason why is because the excessive force inquiry naturally requires the jury to sift through disputed factual contentions and draw upon inferences from those disputes now here specifically as regards to the the serrano case then i would submit your honor that assuming that she did your honor and i understand that in the order the court provides that the facts were assumed in favor of the now moving party i would argue that a reasonable jury would find that a fifteen shooting in an individual who is armed with nothing but a paring knife who is fifteen to twenty feet from the deputy isn't reasonable i would also argue that a reasonable jury would find that a individual who is hobbling shuffling and moving towards the deputy with nothing more than that and i quote simply  simply shuffling towards the deputy jury would not find that shooting to be reasonable out on that in terms of saying that under the circumstances so assuming the facts as you've indicated that she's going to the facing officer with a knife or maybe shuffling twenty feet away  stronger case in the xiang case which defendants of police rely upon it was an enclosed room and it's undisputed that the miss she on was but a few feet away from the deputies at the time that they fired in the serrano case again assuming the facts are most favorable to the not moving party here you see it if you need a serrano she was twenty feet away from deputy chair at the time that he shot her and it was an enclosed space it was twenty five feet of pavement before them outside at night and i think that when you distinguish that case where it's a woman who was mentally ill who had it was armed with an edge weapon there they did find that to be reasonable the use of force but when you compare that to the facts that you have before us and you see all of you know if there are no it's highly distinguishable and there one could conclude that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the estate furthermore the the the record shows many many many disputed contentions granted i submit that there are two trial boys she is a fact but deputy truth entire account is contradicted by five eyewitnesses three of which are independent witnesses are not family members no vested interest and i think that that would call into question deputy true and furthermore  and most importantly it would call into question his perceived threat his allegations or his contention that he felt that there was an immediate threat and that's why he shot  you need us that i don't know and as you know your honour's that when there exists such contradictions in the record it's truly up to each jury to be the ultimate given towards his perception of a threat that's ultimately have to a jury to decide whether he was being forthcoming and truthful and his perceptions are down to about a minute and a half to h  excuse me may please the court david levy on behalf of the police this case involves questions of fact but not genuine questions of fact there were no significant disputed material facts it is undisputed and it is not just from deputy true but frankly by physical evidence objectively evidence and independent witnesses and even the plaintiff themselves that this young woman chased after deputy true he was not running after her she chased after him one hundred in approximately one hundred sixty feet in twelve and a half seconds and the twelve and a half seconds easily verified because of the dispatch tape the nine one one tape from the time that her brother warned deputy true was watch out when she started running until the shot was fired twelve and a half seconds so we know whatever subjectively the family believed their daughter was or was not able to do in terms of running she did no question that she pursued him with a sharp steak knife no question that he warned her several times stop stop it's verified by independent witnesses as well she kept coming finally told her stop and she can't coming she was between fifteen and twenty feet away away in all likelihood fallen disputed and he shot her a single shot deputy truths state of mind his credibility are not really issues given the undisputed the truly and disputed genuine facts of what occurred here unlike the sheehan case  cited by the appellant in which in fact the plaintiff in that case was in a confined room and there were several officers outside and there was no one else inside that room here the ms serrano was outside she was not confined in any way she had a knife there were at least three people within a short distance of her in a public space people come and go out of the the public area right there as well as the adjacent homes it's a very different situation unlike cases where the only witness about what happened is the surviving police officer and he is pursuing the witness or it be a suspect around the corner and no one actually sees the final confrontation just the opposite happened here it's outdoors other people are in jeopardy very reasonable for him to act as he did everything happened in a very unfolded in a very quick manner and it's a sad situation but  the district court did in fact find all the disputed facts in favor of the plaintiffs in ruling a motion for summary judgment did in fact show that the actions were reasonable the district court never reached the issue of qualified immunity which if the court had i think would also have ruled in favor of the deputy true we've brief that  the deputy and you need a serrano as well as the manner in which she was ambulating and particularly important here is that according to deputy truth account he would have a cheering believe and i'm quoting this from the record that she was an olympic runner up and he he literally said that she ran after him at a full sprint she ran after him at a full speed without any limitations that is completely contradicted b witness an independent witness to that shooting and that is mystery and ruiz who again stated that she was shuffling hobbling and it was simply limping towards him was that that while the machine was contained in the room in your surround was outside there are no facts in the record that suggest a deputy true was aware that there was anybody else in the at the moment that she approached her there are disputed facts as to whether she had up in the air or just john by her side to eyewitnesses say that she had it down by her side whereas to be true says that he had she had it up in the air at the time of the shooting again when she was at a distance of about twenty feet from him and hobbling it's undisputed that she did have the perry knife raised up in the air and i just want to also raise that the fact that george versus morris that's that's a as excellent case as the records to a perceived threat of others in george versus morris the court held that the  contained in her own in her porch just standing on her porch and her family members were a good five to ten feet away from her unscathed just waiting for jeopardy purcel to ride to help them give her her medication ambushing her but as we all know the provocation doctoring is is no longer an argument that we can move forward but i just want to make sure i clarify that in our moving in our opposing peepers