with the question of motivation is it is important here in the statement of facts to support the most for summary judgment the statement was made that officer the deputy anderson acted because sergeant his sergeant instructed him to ask the sergeant the time and the place of shooting the c s cartridge in response there was a statement that point that that was controverted and that a full ager controverted  maybe there is some ambiguity in the summary judgment standard that the district court did get i suppose say that there was some question about that there were disputes about what was going on at the time the district court did should act it was the sergeant thirty let me interrupt you again if you look at all the videos it looks like an awfully calm place an awfully calm area and yes for sure and the district court says a calm scene suddenly interrupted by gunfire and tear gas directly targeting planes that seems accurate enough and what this report says surely that's controverted sure that requires a trial well i so so two different questions on the motivation question i don't see how that gets us to a trial because that doesn't tell you anything about what sergeant or what debbie anderson's motivation was this statement is that he acted because he was told by his sergeant to act that's the motivation there is no evidence to support a claim that there was some other motivation for him as opposed to the sergeant or someone else but you don't get to trial as t on the st amendment claim unless you have some kind of evidence about him not just about other people but about him and it's not fair but the district court is getting to i think does pertain to this question of whether whether there was a seizure which of course was the other question about whether it was reasonable and so the district court in essence is saying that deputy editor said should have told this sergeant no because what was going on here was enough to put i guess a deputy anderson on notice that his sergeant was wrong and in the air what the district court really doesn't do is address this from the perception of anderson and perception depends on a variety of as this court aggressive why that there had been violence the night before just a couple of blocks away he may have known as again the court said in white the right we want this threat west florissant there had been problems two nights before he was  are on one of those side streets and so there's no dispute about that so the question then becomes ok since think when they get to this particular place there isn't that he said was that he st seemed that things were coming from orders and you had this moment after the whole history of the afternoon and the evening leading up to this point if you look down the street and and it seems quiet down that particular street at that time it does and that there were people around the lights in fact one of the plaintiffs i think uses the term that people who are hovering around the lights the lights there's no way that the lights were interfering with the least to some  there may be a day and argue about to what degree they interfered with a few of their officers but at least to some degree they were interfering with the view of the officers and so the question again becomes when wince when deputy anderson gets this order when he gets to this particular quarter having walked through this and having had one of his colleagues injured by something that was thrown having seen other things thrown as they come off the street from between houses from side streets when he looked down the street and sees the lights at the time that he's told to fire this round should he have told his sergeant no i'm not going to do that and if you look at what it is the plane to say about the reason that he should have known that one of the people on top of that vehicle nothing to suggest that anyone pulled deputy anderson that i was on top of the vehicle and this is what i saw you have no connection between that and deputy anderson and then you have the statement there rd point one  very difficulty and see who is behind the light he knew that elsewhere as they came up the street there were people probably things at them when he got that instruction he had sufficient information that he had at least arguable probable cause that he could act upon in order to reply would be obstruction that he is perception was that there was a threat that was a reasonable perception given the emperor mation the knowledge that he had that particular time knowledge that is his knowledge or not it's not enough to say that all the rest this happened i find it interesting the point of why to ignore everything that happened along the street that  was the officer came up all of this history people throwing things an officer may enter what they want to do instead is allowed to have students over the course of the day and say those show that police were targeting the prouse they can't  those incidents to deputy editor said they can't to make any connection there at all but they think you ought to take their things as they are the things they help them out of the course of what was happening during the day but you should ignore what was happening during the but they could hear those orders so it seems it seems at least arguably reasonable for a deputy anderson to conclude that they could be heard even at three hundred feet away given  during the day back in the commercial area one question really here brandon jones recording of the orders to disperse so we know with his family works we know could record audio in order to disperse but because he recorded it in his acoustic device is used for the public address which is what the officer says on one hundred and forty four somebody externally is going to capture it on their audio the medic didn't experienced trained journalist saying i have no i see what they're firing at the council let me pick up on you at that point if i may interrupt you and ask you this temple question under our johnson in why they had to be a great press and do an effective job you're doing a great job on that but th amendment requires a senior and under the johnson case where you could go anywhere when you leave there's no saying here i know there's a circus  anywhere and candidly you know when you watch your videos your videos are good but when you watch your videos it looks like they couldn't go anywhere and short of any back the don't let lawyers is that term a liar they considered almost an ethical violation up and justice ginsburg speaking of her justice ginsburg said in interviews with with the editor of black's law dictionary that you cite justice ginsburg said that she always tried to reprimand lawyers if they attack the other counsel their clients or the lower court so i thought your use of that was on the edge i know what you're thinking but i do you need to call people  i don't need it and i know and i apologize your honor but my point is his credibility is not only at stake because he makes affirmative statements which are just proved but more importantly he never sense once i but i did not know these were members of the media he never says i never heard the plaintiff say we're not a member of the media all he says is i know the lights were there and i couldn't tell exactly who was there