please the court i'm carl farrow on the appellant's tourney in this matter i can be very brief because i think that the issue is a very simple legal issue as to whether or not the papers which were presented to the judge in or back presented to you create a conflict in the evidence as to where the officer was the moment he fired the seven shots into the automobile and killed and killed mr taxi all his original position of course was that he was at the front bumper and that the car headed toward him and he fired because the car was threatening his life it turns out that a very view of the evidence and his subsequent declaration indicates that he may well have been alongside the driver's door and no longer in the jeopardy which allowed him to use force the issue is whether or not there's a conflict in the evidence as to whether he where he was whether he was in danger his life and if there is such a conflict as to where he was at the time he fired the fatal shots this was of course a matter of which i believe the jury should be  given an opportunity to answer the questions which are raised by the pleadings i believe that  that the officer fired allegedly fired through the window of the car into the left side of the seat and whether he was in fact  jeopardized i believe that that's a very important question as to whether or not he could reasonably used lethal then deadly force  to when he's trying to escape you have to measure the amount of force by what he has done what a risk what kind of a risky represents to the public from arguments he might make in evaluating the evidence should this case proceed to a jury trial certainly not the standard that is requisite for this court to overturn the summary judgment ruling of the district court he also stated that  the defendants would have to present some evidence that mr grech cielo was indeed a threat to the officers in our view we have submitted three declarations which are not controverted or contradicted in any way by any evidence offered by the plaintiff so the fact that indeed detective krueger was in threat of immediate and deadly peril both officers came to that same conclusion virtually simultaneously which is before this court as well mr the officer then moved to his right to avoid being impacted by the vehicle but the turning radius of the vehicle was such that the officer was only able to get several inches away from the front he was struck by the left front quarter panel of that vehicle and all the evidence supports that fact there after the car continued to turn toward him there's also an indication asset for if in the evidence that he may have been struck a second time on the driver's door where that occurred relative to the shooting is unknown but the vehicle continued to turn into the officer and this and that orientation so that the officer could not escape the vehicle and and there's evidence on the driver's door to suggest that and in response to something that your honor said moments ago in terms of the direction of the bullets into the vehicle detective stoller who prepared that record in his declaration the court recall specifically stated that he was not taking any position in his report as to the movements of that vehicle or the movements of the officer and diagramming the entry locations of the various bullets that were fired detective supply indicates that there may have been one bullet fired from detective hoover before he fired but the fact that both officers fired their guns concurrently as strongly suggested in our if the courts just very briefly touch upon the issues that should qualified immunity and course evolve first in this issue i know however if there is a question as to whether there's a fourth amendment violation clearly both officers the officers have to make split second judgments regarding force necessary in a tense and rapidly evolving situation this by definition was a rapidly evolving situation neither officer could have anticipated that mr after initially indicating that he was going to surrender with turn his vehicle into one of the officers and strike him in the process the situation moves so quickly that both officers recently concluded that they had they had to fire to save the one officers life so in the situation like this the officer would not have the time to posit or pose the question as to what conduct might be reasonable under the fourth amendment he had to act with this trash and therefore in our view there supported tolerated ratified any conduct which was extra constitutional i'll submit it to the court and let's any questions from the justices i don allegations of the officer that he was in a position of danger it is a simple observation that a man who's standing alongside of a car may well in a better position to step back two steps then he has to fire pleydell bullets i believe that the question is clearly one as to whether or not you can say without any hesitation that there is no conflicting evidence about the danger which was represented to orchestrate krueger