and we will go on to he's number two which is appealing number fourteen twenty five twenty three williams versus indiana state  if it pleases the court my name is michael sullivan and i'm representing your state of billy williams nine one one is a universal call for assistance and help billy williams the father tyler and jacob was threatening suicide on january fifteenth two thousand and twelve he was killed by various police officers and moving to conservation officers who chose to ambush with tasers and guns instead of talking to billy williams while he was in his own bathroom and his own home the police officers from the different agencies did not assist they shot him after arriving twenty nine minutes they didn't talk to him they didn't say a single word to him the family expected medical systems know his mother patty study  called for medical assistance the son jacob called nine one one none of them thought every sponsor would be so terrible and that the response would be using violence in fact when tyler who was allowed to stay in the room of served the officers drawing out their weapons and training him on the floor he cautioned them put those away you don't meet those but  their weapons wayward forwards do the primary thing else and dryness circumstances well i'm to the circumstances i think that the police have a duty to integrate all the information they have including information from family members and to be reasonable in their evaluation of the case law cautions officers that are that they are to treat a distraught and suicidal and emotionally distraught people differently and thus case you have somebody who is under the influence of drugs and alcohol well help me with this search the family members broke down the bedroom door to get to billy's but they did not unlock the bathroom door to get take him drugs he threatened them even though they knew he was in the process of trying to kill himself and we have what that indicate that they thought entering the given that they knew how to unlock the door from the outside well common sense i think judge would dictate that if somebody is suicidal and distraught and irrational none of the influence of drugs and alcohol and their one demand their one constant demand is don't come in here then you talk to them through the door that's the way the national standard is when you have somebody who shows up when you talk to them through the door unless you think they're bleeding to death but there was no evidence that they were that he was near death undisputed but there's there's a question we have dr cor who said it is unlikely highly unlikely that anybody who cuts their wrists would be bleeding out and dying and so let's just say as you would allege that the police officers ha duty or at least have the right to intervene should they believe this is extension circumstances i think that's what the courts ask and we believe that the evidence suggests that it's just the opposite when tyler was used as a go between and ask questions prompted by the police they said don't tell him we're out here don't let him know we're here he doesn't know we're here every question that tyler asked dad what are you using don't do that how are you he had a turkey based or an air he had told him he had taken alcohol they were responding a person using common sense even a parent dealing with somebody who is locked in the bathroom if they make that demand don't come in here then you would have to think well all right i'll continue to try that's what a suicidal person is going to do they're going to make demands if the demand is reasonable in other words i'm not harming anybody i'm talking to you i'm responding i'm standing up tyler said that he became more calm as time went on my feet was threatening to not a threat buster if you come in my house are going to knock your block off you don't come in the house it's not a threat in this case remember the police stood outside there and did nothing they did absolutely nothing if you call the police will you call a medical person and you had a suicidal person what would you expect judge when you expect them to engage that person to talk i'm to see what the real issues are the secret can they offer safe information can they give you water can they give you food you would engage them to gain their confidence to calm them down to see what the real issues are we stated in our brief and in our experts that it takes on average four and a half hours for a person to deal with a suicidal individual who's intent on killing themselves to bring them down to bring them into a rational state w we have to you know what we're faced with is what the officers were faced with another words we have to decide whether the officers were faced with exigent circumstance i agre being becoming incoherent so couple minutes ago you said that it was disputed to the amount that he was bleeding is there something other than the expert the pain in the chair behind the expert opinion is one of the things that the judge excluded after the fact and interact with the what was there any contemporaneous evidence about that that would bear on whether the degree of bleeding or how much he was bleeding or whether he was bleeding or where he was bleeding out or whatever that that was a did genuinely disputed that or what it has he says it's not going the going off the internet isn't working and by the way it's going so badly i want you to go get a gun so if you were to hear that you say i guess he's not leaving out he wants to rush this thing along and in fact it's such an extraordinary outrageous action by the part of police to say ok let's go through this are right let's put the gun on the floor and see if he pops open the door now imagine with all the case law we've cited that says you cannot use any substantial force against a person who was not resisting and not even or if he is passively fifty you can't do that they pop open the door he's standing there with no weapon is totally surprised and they shoot him with tasers and most important judge they never give a single command they never say a timeline jacob shows up first knocks the door down talks to the father and then he goes out to seek to see if you can catch the other police officer in the meantime helen shows up but they ask all the all of the family six family members and they ask them to all go out but they  here had still to point to any evidence that contradicted hallums testimony that a conversation occurred and which was held so corroborated by the three officers who stated that h command said to tyler don't make any noise about or tell him he's we're here he doesn't know we're here that seems totally inconsistent with somebody who just acknowledged or had previously told him he was a police officer standing outside the door that fact  inconsistent the second thing is if a police officer did identify himself and why would the father say go get a gun it's not going well that doesn't make any sense and the third thing and most important thing is that that fact was never shared with any family member nor was it overheard by any family member and when tiger was present in the bedroom for the entire time he disputed that any of that hallam had the chance to say that because of the instructions he was given by chad not to let anybody know we're here and most importantly when the they work trying to decide what to do they never included the son in this discussion that he never was folder reason we're going in here is because we believe there's some sort of ex circumstances they just ran out of what to do there was no exemption circumstances included in their discussion and tyler overheard every word that was being said did they have any kind of a hot hostage negotiators the wrong word but that they have any kind of train he said he's cutting himself what would be the signs if a person starts to bleed out what should we look for and they would have said i'm absolutely certain he would start to be slurring his words he would start to stutter he would start he might even fa the ground and there was no evidence in fact just the opposite when they were talking to him he was being a little bit agitated that they couldn't get the gun out of the door there was evidence that either cut down on his hands and used a lock and then stood up so when they let's just say you had goggles on and couldn't see anything when they open the door what is the emergency well you stand in there with a knife in front of him only ask a question about it he's standing facing them the nights are behind do we know w taser didn't work did it did the probes not hit him or or is any of those probably had him the other one did this is fifty thousand poles we deposed each officer and each officer said they knew from their own training that when a person is under the influence of alcohol and drugs or is very distraught that they don't often work a lot of times they don't often in fact they do it didn't work all the time that's why the backup plan was to draw the guns and point them at the door and if something goes wrong we're going to shooting that was their plan and that is a plan which should not ever be allowed to exist in this state or in this country that is no plan at all when you call for help you should not expect the police to draw out their guns and said if you have a common sense and try to talk somebody is intending to commit suicide and we're not even sure how serious he was crazy he didn't write a note because his two boys were the signal typically that they want help he didn't send the boys away i remind you he did not send anybody away he just didn't want them to come in the bathroom when they shot him with the taser is that a fourth amendment seizure that's the fourth and fourteenth the memphis ioway should never use of force without justification in the reason that you say there was no justification is that he didn't have the he didn't have a weapon in his hand there was no imminent threat because it was sort of on the if come conditional whatever it was you right you used and so they shouldn't have shot him with the taser they should have touched on him with a taser i mean if what had happened is if they had opened the door and he was coming at them with a knife no question they could have shot him right i'm not even going to address that question because if he started coming out let's just say you had a good plan if i do and i've done a lot of police cases the good plan is you have some distance so if he comes out you can do a lot of think you can put a chair in front of you and knife is not a stretching as it appears to be i've dealt with somebody who comes out with an i guess what you walk away you don't shoot them there's no reason to shoot a person there was no hostage there so i'm not going to answer the question empathically because i don't know the police officer could make the argument i was in fear of my life but as we've cited in our case that you're that you theory basically a thump if i'm getting it right is that the bad seizure was the shooting with the taser and everything else it's just a matter of proximate cause basic yes the cases we've cited misled case the brown case if a police officer breaks the law in this case we think he broke the law by using excessive force and firing the tasers without justification then everything that happens after that that is foreseeable stevenson i'm here on behalf of defendants but in county sheriff and john chair i like oh my remarks by reminding the court of what evidence is undisputed in the record and that the district court noted that the officers relied upon in order to deploy force first and foremost williams was suicidal he had taken substantial tep steps toward committing suicide he had cut his wrists he had consumed according to the son a half a bottle of that he had to repeatedly threatened to kill or step anyone who opened the bathroom door he made those threats to family members officer hallam and anyone else he had cut himself so it was reported despair after the door was opened there were two large knives on the sink righted his finger ten so so shooting him with a taser was a was a fourth amendment seizure right yes it was ok so what what justified that was it the threat or was it the fact that he was suicidal or it was both or what the fact that he was threatening repeatedly to stab or kill anyone will been the door if they open the door he would step or he would do something to him if they opened the door well it was that is that enough is that immediate enough to actually be a crime under the statute that the judge cited if you can constitute intimidation the felony intimidation that the judge sided but we weren't going in for purposes of arresting him you're on well but you have to have had ever reason to taser him and i says asking what the reason was and you said it was because he had committed this crime is it the rights they committed a crime or to ask is there a crime involved there is deep thought ok well let me ask the question again what was the justification for tas justification was to employ a non lethal force against an individual who was a threat to the officers what is it reasonable to and immediately resort to non lethal force without providing an opportunity for a captive person to comply in those circumstances this was a bedroom the officers were only a few feet from the door they were not under a so the justification for using the taser was what justification was the door open there's knives on the sink at his fingertips he had threatened to kill anyone who opened the door tasers were deployed with the expectation case so it was the fact it was the fact that he was there in the room he had these knives that were within reach in that he had made a threat to kill anybody who would come in correct when and just stay outside and the threat doesn't the national threat threats only if officer commander officer chad told the boy don't let him know we're here because he would they perceive that williams was becoming more agitated they didn't want him to know that there were multiple officers there officer chad thought the they had to try to get him out in a safe means the case the safe means taser him and get him medical tests get there was an ambulance there i might also add has the court inquired was there a specialist there officer chad did call for that and i'm not sure that really matters i was just person to voluntarily complied before resorting to non lethal force there was no case non analogous facts which put these officers not notice that where you have a suicidal individual who had made threats to kill and stay out anyone who opened the door that deploying a taser for purposes of simply subduing him to get him medical attention violates the fourth amendment it's their burden to make that showing they level that's true but what they're arguing and what the district court rejected was the notion that the fact that they didn't go in or undergo greater planning or horror take other measures constitutes a deficient method or plan we're going about trying to rescue this man that doesn't violate the fourth amendment we have to look at the seizure itself the deployment of deadly force or the taser and ask was it permissible the safest means available under these circumstances to deal with this type of individual going in a hands on was not an option going in with o c spray was not an option these are options considered by the way  added think about can i call out a swat team maybe i'll have a shield but it wasn't feasible this is in a rural area they acted because they thought time was of the essence to try to help williams and it was williams who then attacked officers distinction from the circumstance because we have a circumstance like in sled where there is a fourth amendment violation due to no knock and announce and any liability that or any adverse consequence off for qualified immunity purposes your honour's this mr williams was not passively resisting or not resisting as that term has been applied to other section one hundred eighty three plaintive such that it could be claimed that  subjects such as the case of philips versus the community insurance this was the use of the rubber of the towns the individual was in a car she was seated in the car she was her feet were on the pavement she was not resisting this guy was actively resist he threatened i guess i have to come back at you on the help what's more was the act of about the resisting before they open the door was he actively resisting he was threatening to kill anyone will still infected resisting can include words about something it's you might do in the future that constitutes an act of resistance it's a threat yes or no so if somebody is somebodies inside a door and says if you come through the door i'm going to hurt you that would be justification for like let's go through the door right now that by itself i'm not saying it's just a mascot of the it is it would it be it is a threat such that if he cannot be viewed as passively resisting such that no force should be employed so so active resisting can be words alone is what you're saying well these code will work to us i mean at least a justified non lethal force if you don't have a problem i would think if they opened the door and went in hands on you know no lethal force they had to do something they had to go hands on or use something if i guess i'm just i'm just concerned about the saying that this was a resistance i mean i think m sutherland gave the example silicon you come into my backyard i'm going to slug you is that is that had well food he was referring to the polling place from the supreme court where there was some ambiguity in the remark here there's no ambiguity no no reasonable officer would view that remark i'm going to kill you if you come in the door as anything other than a threat i see my time as  good morning your may it please the court i represent the state officers trooper thomas of the indiana state police and conservation officers lab part and springs ten of the indiana department of natural resources the arguments presented in the collective brief and by mr stevens and that are common to all of the officers apply to the state officers but i just wanted to be available for questions pertaining particularly to the state officers and to the extent necessary to make a few points particular to them the events of the night of january fifteenth two thousand and twelve unfortunately ended tragically officers lab hart and thomas were required to shoot mr williams when officer chads and hounds tasers failed to stop mr williams from advancing toward officer house apparently preparing to kill him as was confirmed today the ests legal theory the williams the state's legal theory has never been that the use of lethal force was a seth and to the extent that the williams estate suggests that it was attempts to make that observed i just wanted to underscore that the evidentiary the evidence based argument that pertains to the state officers whether they were able to see through the bathroom window and what they were able to see through the bathroom window ultimately is immaterial because the officers had that information from other sources what information the information that mr williams was suicidal and that he had cut himself i thought what they claim to have seen through the window was blood all over the place quote unquote that they have that information from other sources they did not have that ok so the thing about it being suicidal that's not even disputed i think that you know it was critical was how much blood there was that's disputed right right but they had they knew from the nine one one dispatcher that he had cut himself and so that that in combination with the information that they gleaned by looking through the window can't do that that's too high up for you there's no there's they don't make that kind of ladder that they were using doesn't go up that high of you know why wouldn't i know that it seems to me that that was disputed i don't know right  i mean to the extent that i think right now though that point isn't really one that is made before this court i think that the information that was presented  from the son tyler was perhaps and told to him by other officials by other individuals and that that wasn't  not a single word mentioned to mr believe williams had they opened the door and said billy i want you to come out with your hands up while on the ground do anything then they might have a different argument but to shoot somebody in my surprise i  cotton case from the supreme court the trial judges in the lower judges are snobs supposed to draw inferences favorable to the police they're supposed to draw inferences that are fable to the nonmoving party in that case it is the estate of billy williams and the inference to be drawn is that he was surprised at the door being opened he was not given any instructions and he was tasered without warning and he was suicidal delusional and under the influence of alcohol and drugs i would think under that circumstance you could fairly and recently foresee that this was a