under a table and then once it was safe he came out and then the guard shot and then he was hit so the objective sort of dish up on the floor suggested that this with a shot way after there was any reason well that looking through the five s we also have even if we were to credit the guards that the fight wasn't completely over yet certainly isn't an reasonable response to fire shot into the situation so the fight as they call it was without this this record can i just have a question that was unclear to me so it seemed clear to me that the shots were fired after the inmate stop struggling but it wasn't clear to me whether the inmate was continuing to struggle with the guard at that point or whether they had both been completely subdued so there's conflicting testimony on that so i think that mr clay said that essayed to nineteen that everything was over the guard g again and there's a lot of testimony that there were scuffling or whatever we know that there was never no weapon materialized and nobody was really hurt so what we have in response to that is firing a shotgun that the government puts on the back of the redgrave those came from the deposition so they did walk walk through those videos but it i find it very difficult to see moch and it's troubling at summary judgment again problem that remains even if it's admissible apps armory judgment she shouldn't have been crediting the testimony that he had been told that given that especially given a that we know he's lied to already about what happened in that fight and be summary judgment show that the defendants fired buckshot following the present cafeteria fight to restore order rather than to intentionally maliciously and sadistically harm the plaintiffs because the record evidence show that the defendants perceived i don't get that it would be just a verbal match this wasn't a verbal match this is very different than the us versus downey where there was no sort of threat of aggression or any other disturbance and the guards in that case are acting in a very punitive manner  teasing someone after he refused to stand up here we have individuals who are actually placing hands on one another tussling wrestling in the line you have an individual inmates who are standing there is testimony in the was still an ongoing threat to their own safety and the safety of other inmates there was no line by that and their affidavit stated this and their incident reports they believe that staff had separated fighting inma well but he thought that they were still in danger so he fired the warning shot and you saw the other inmates were moving from the shoot or that line of the cafeteria to you and under the tower and white that other staff assume that i'm trying to get at the question of if he did it kind of maliciously without caring what would go did that endanger the officers as well as the other prisoners on the floor and what it endangered everyone if you was doing it carelessly but a couple of very quick points the first is my friend on the other side has emphasized the defendant's perception i just want to flag that in hudson first of all the perception is just one factor but the court doesn't just say what they perceive it says the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials and the reasonable encompasses all these other factors about how long that fight it had gone on how serious it was started in terms of the amount of time they have i just want to clarify for the record the three seconds was how long it took the guards on the floor to get there the one minute testimony was how long it took to the stop happen so just to be clear wasn't there's no question that they fired within three seconds when it was very difficult to figure out what was going on in terms of the danger to the guards and i don't i don't know the answer i just want to acquire that the people who were hit were fifty feet away so it may well be that the shot i did chance of ri