warrant no anything like that at that point there's nothing to suspect that tells or maybe in any way dangerous or monitoring crimes you know besides that little speeding stop right there so winston thompson check same thing pulling his hand from the officer and that was the only thing he was charged with and the only thing he pled  i mean in other words as i understand it you're disputing that you're engaged in the kind of physical scuffle where they were the policeman the policeman says that you didn't gauge in a political scuffle and him then he turned around so looking at his version of events he was still facing away his hands were somewhere near his waistband depending on which version thompson's things you would look at his unusual statement the day of the erred in what she says the plaintiff's movement was before he was shot but the the main air the material fact in this case is to let you give us and i'm asking you what is wrong about what jos rosenthal also says about his movement two completely new mass of the medical evidence that he had to be that he was turning at the time that he got shot well to me the evidence in this case of course it doesn't really help anybody there was no accident so all we know is the bullet so it's the whole thing boils down in your mind to whether your client was turning towards the officer and that your position is there's a fact issue on that because you have opposing testimony of the two main witnesses before he got shot they simply was not threatening stream question but do we have clearly established law that says if you're disobeying a command and walking away that the officers can't shoot you in in the back do we have clearly established law in the circuit that says that basic you can't shoot unless there's an immediate threat in going back to the man is the loss and all the other cases it's all there was some threatening act by the suspect most of time they're reaching under whatever size larger or smaller as actions of movements might be that will give an objective only reasonable officer reason to believe that his wife is in danger are these uncertain dangerous serious they're incredibly quick and so given that intelligent sources a judge or what i will say is here officer thompson is dealing with a man who he has justifiable reason to believe is wrong ok and later that proves to be the case so here this man haven't searched it i have searched the truck he's tried pushing him to the traffic he tried to push me over the rail there's just a little bit of room here so is it your position it doesn't matter whether or not the gentleman who was turning around or not you know something that doesn't have to be that he didn't do in the room or that right well but if it could create a back to speak i'm trying to understand if it's a material fact dispute of whether or not he was turning because it's material if it's not appropriate to shoot him and less he's turning it's not material if you tell me in the law agrees with you that just reaching in his belt even if he's not turning is i good enough reason to shoot in the back and so that's that's why i'm trying to figure out if there's a material fact dispute right and can you help me with that i some sort of judge we have to consider dispute that he was turning and opposing counsel says well there is no dispute that he was turning if there are i'm asking you you're an officer of the court was the district court in correct when it said that there was no that's not material because it's under subpoena the was turning and so turning to either direction whether it's the left or the right does it really matter because that helps to go to the idea that this guy may be about to shoot me and yet i'll go further i don't know that this court has to do this but i would go further and say says that if you reach could be reaching for a weapon even if you're going opposite direction that you can be shot i mean is that is that if that's a righteous police i'm just wondering if we have a case either way that you know i'm not talking about qualified officer consider the totality of the circumstances and we know how these that makes the second judgments and a number of different kinds of things could be interpreted as an imminent threat and so if he doesn't know if the means  something and you you know taking that as truthful and drawing always simple inference is in favor of that the most that that can mean for the plaintiff is that he saying that he turned that's still a fact issue right it's not a material or else i'll go back to the other question about why that's not material because he was not an expert in this lawsuit so there was no expert opinion from it was just personal opinion just from a review of the case and basically what