the morning may place the court my name is james here does that with that error alone require reversal in light of all the other evidence of criminal history in this case you are we are proceeding on the fact that the probation officer you up to it's mr wagner answered again answered the negative and then found but they're not challenge again the veracity of payment by bringing in evidence for example whether that feeling we did have prior uncooperative behavior with the instructions provided at all concerning the prior guys are bad acts evidence what that evidence could be used for the lawful purposes that the jury could use or and because the jury could use that information for example to make wrongful imprint about m that the fact of two criminal convictions shouldn't have been mitigated i mean obviously it's our position that the st criminal conviction was central to his case it's the reason why he was on probation and was admitted i think during the course of the trial by mr langley and also he admitted that he was serving time for  a nd conviction so i think those two convictions the fact of the convictions isn't shouldn't be an issue the next question is whether or not the nature of the st conviction and should have come in that is spousal abuse and you know the peace officer here was facing a very difficult situation and that criminal history that violent felony was part of the totality of the circumstances that the officer was aware of before he went and put his hands on the plaintiff and i can tell you i mean how with a thief there's nobody in this zoom if you had your chance to pick are you when you are going to go up by yourself to a bigger taller person in the middle of the night and put your hands around that person to go pat him down for weapons and contraband we would like to know i think we would all pick if we had our druthers a nonviolent offender versus a violent offender and the fact that he's a violent offender is something that increases the threat meter to the officer on the scene and in and colors the lenses through which he will evaluate the conduct of the person if he's dealing with in terms of determining if when and how much force he's going to use langley the identification i'm sorry collegio ran the identification of langley and discovered this information before he ever put hands on on the langley before he drew his taser and before he fired his taser and it's an incident absolute horror and one of the of the circumstances that that a jury should consider in deciding whether or not excessive force was used under the circumstances secondly and the plaintiff admitted the transcript the report that out of the margins in in that document has the the offending or the commitment offense spousal abuse so the play to put it in evidence is part of the totality of circumstances it certainly was not a  the basis for the admissibility of that came in as a result in direct result directly as a result of mr langley opening the door this despite the fact and it's very clear in the record that the court beginning in the case just a day before told a very careful do not go into your criminal background if you do mr law may be able to go into it in spite of that warning by the he says anywhere in my history do i have a stall the police officer whether it's in z e c county jail that you're aware of any because you have my whole file that's not my m o and so i'm sorry for a for a trial judge for a trial attorney when they hear that there's hearing the played of changing the picture of nonviolence and so his the questions by mr leverett asking about the reasons for those revocations is one hundred percent in direct response to the tender of his character for nonviolence