may please the court in the panel i have the pleasure of representing michael a chance the appellant in this matter michael a chance woke up in the throes experienced a medical emergency in january of two thousand and fourteen which person forcefully over a sofa resoled thing and that person suffering to fracture birder breast was excessive only for the court to point out subsequently or shortly after that that accordingly the initial push may have been a reasonable use of force how the court got there it's unclear to me perhaps because the court was following the general black letter proposition that not every  the da and the living room area my client landing car on the ground in the area of his back and in the area of the shoulder that's a testimony we know in this case that all of the three finance had exposure with people we have seizures and this abilities because every law enforcement officer is trained in c p r and through the american heart association all of them at the summary judgment record medical emergency case this was not a criminal law enforcement so how how did we get from finding that there was an excessive use of force to finding that there guns drawn one of them pistol whip some and then they throw in the bed and they cause some other injuries the court things that that type of pushing and pulling is acceptable under the th amendment and perhaps comparable to the driving under the influence of alcohol runs away from police so the police have to point their weapons at him and eventually they tackle them there ian in our view was complete was correctly decided on disability or seizure situation as opposed to a substance abuse situation how were they to distinguish well be because they have been trained and because judgment and i also believe that it came a trial but it wouldn't make any difference for purposes of this case because they had enough information to believe  officers would have reasonably known that there was a clearly established right for them to react differently yes and as i understand it the district court judge said well looking at you know st circuit president precedent the officers would not have known that there was a clearly established right to behave otherwise and summary judgment i differ from that judge because there is there's a number of cases in massachusetts that froze that throwing  using pro rowing yanking and slamming putting the knees behind somebody is back who's not resisting violates the th amendment for that and those cases were discussed we cited farah these were all cases where people and and by the way in all of those cases the police also said well i didn't know he was having a seizure the courts in those cases deny summary judgment so that would be on the st issue the other issue was this artificial employment of the segment analysis and analysis if you as far as i can tell if i look at the segment analysis this is a term that was if it wasn't said that when they talk of that as escalating the pressure i didn't hear the initial question judge thompson how would how would you describe what the court how do you distinguish that sampson from what happened here i'm sorry your honor i have not read the sampson case carefully your audio and video all right thank you you're on has me please the court on behalf of the respondents trial if i may just get directly into it i think the segmented analysis was correct in this particular case notwithstanding the fact that the incidence and i'm talking about the fall over the chair is one incident in the allegedly on the back is the nd incident two separate incidents notwithstanding the fact that the occurred within a short period of time  the judge and his summary judgment decision found excessive force in the entirety and then we looked at it separately and said that although the push over the chair may have been war course that is necessary here too in that it was a lot of force qualified immunity in this particular situation was correct because as you can see from the facts of the case this was not a situation of some malicious pushed just not the guy down these police officers route confronted with this very know force was used but it certainly wasn't anything malicious so as to ignore qualified immunity and these offices are using their best efforts to try to protect this guy and control why would it and it meant it when it was a matter if you just argued getting it out of control person because of illness under control oh just because the way the court accidental or something that qualified immunity really should be looking at because just pushing over a chair to get the guy to sit down it's a lot different and neon than that which could be construed as more of a serious more of an intentional type of  the the chair and so far was that all part of the evidence that came in you know you ron no you were on and that was a contention because if that had been dismissed it was it was only mentioned in brief to kind of put the atmosphere together as far as what happened in the incident but very little if any was discussed about the chair just so that we so the jury would know how the guy got on the floor in the st place it was just brought up as an introductory situation i think that the judge decided that it was a directed verdict would be based on causation i would suggest that the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff that he would have been entitle to qualified immunity for that as well but the facts are out of work both at the summary judgment standard at the summary judgment time and trial that there was no injury whatsoever as a result of a little h t on the back judge doc to chirk off it reported at summary judgment and he testified consistently for the plaintiff at the trial that the only entry the really the only injury was the compression fracture to the back which was caused when he fell over the chair and that there was no injury when anybody put a neat on the back if that happened he looked at bruising and said the bruising was where the fracture was and even under redirect examination of the somebody i mean not minimizing if i just for example if a police officer brushes his body up against in a fellow when he's arresting them i mean that may be an unwanted touching is we know is an assault is but it's not an injury but it which is reasonable to be used in any type of detention whether it's a criminal detention or arrest attention or a mental health detention but if the hill standard is one is the person suffering a medical emergency and the answer is yes here case attorney penya arrow and attorney lewis and you should disconnect from the hearing at this time