for drug charge there was an allegation of a business burglary that occurred that there may there had not been a warrant issued for what the officer was aware of she rolls up on the same subject p there's nobody directly in his path he moves his car to the left go across to his neighbor's yard to get out of the street and she shoots it or you leaving out of that story that she took the gun temple my client believes that the shot went off when she smashed the window on the when the glass actually came in and he had indicated he put his arm up because the glass was coming and i don't know which service was  testified that the gun went off by accident before he drove away and literally when he turned the ignition she stepped back because the car was in gear an shot now whether all this was occurring at one time the difference between her version of stepping back and shooting as he starts to move or it going off as she smashed the window we're talking a matter of one or two seconds because this was all happening very fast but the issue that i see before the court is some riggers was not appropriate where this officer only basis for having fired her gun based on her testimony was her fear that other officers might be coming into the area and might get run over or what about a fleeing felon in a car speeding to get away isn't it the interest of the public don't you don't we hear all the time about people being killed  because somebody trying to get away in a car runs into them or smashes them and other being chased i guess we're going to look at a policy issue policy issues do we want officers shooting people shooting in the direction of civilians when it's a non violent crime there's no allegation that he has used force or threaten to use force the officer had no indication that he was trying to use force of any guide he was merely trying walking away in other words he's trying to drive away understand under frantic conditions where he refuses to stop with a gun it is this is the a danger to you know your friends and neighbors who are driving on the street and because it couldn't danger the public and they don't shoot at all they stop the pursuit because unless the person has done a violent crime they in pursuing may cause that fatal accident with the to protest that the fact of fleeing itself makes him a car makes him a danger to the community and i would suggest that that should not be a basis for allowing  police officers should use they should not but we have a the u s supreme court i think is the standard and i think they can be argued whether comes within the standard but i think we have to follow that standard and as i understand it the standard is that deadly force can be used if a car chase would pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the  or serious physical injury to the public and if it's necessary to you know stop the person on the second element she tried everything else she put a gun to his hand she smashed the window she certainly tried last drastic things to get  of the terminally wouldn't stop said i'm going to have to kill me or whatever but they basically wouldn't stop so my problem is for the same reason you're saying although i don't watch cops i've heard from my law clerks that have often shows cars you know parading out of control when people are going fast and pee well getting injured and you know those are innocent people totaling this and people getting injured  was in fact blocking in the i would you say that if somebody is driving away with after they've refused to stop at the direct request of a police officer and refused to stop with a gun at their head refused to stop when someone bashed in the window with a gun that there's a risk that they're going to drive fast trying to get away at this point if there are no officers in pursuit there's nothing to say that he won't drive around the corner and dri new to law enforcement and public policy thank you amount of time talking about or asking questions about the circumstances of the shooting and i think it's extremely important for the court understand the physical circumstances that confronted officer grisel and the risk remember the court must look at the totality of the circumstances that faced officer brousseau not the kind of broad you know the circumstances of other cases you've talked about the fact that there were park cars blocking the path of his escape but no one is mentioned the fact that there was a three year old child in the car closest to mr hallinan by mr howe thence assessment only about four feet away small tight space that his car was in and that shall be are the positioning of the cars the extreme narrowness of the street that he was escaping into and also very importantly that show that his car was positioned very close to a house after bristow was expecting her backup officers to come around the front of that house that's where she thought they were going to be coming they safe or after she shot him ok this big zach really is the dilemma that police officer space every day and remember she knew that if she shot she could seriously injure or kill mr howe that she also knew that she couldn't predict what he was going to do and if she didn't shoot him his actions his driving could seriously injure one of her fellow officers or the people in those cars and that could happen here in this situation in that you earlier stages he's in the no i've often heard police officers that's not in the record talk about you know civilians that kind of don't understand some of these issues we're asking them why they don't shoot tires they are trained not to shoot tires out because of the risks of ric if that's the training the sleeper that may be on the hook here too well i think what what we have to consider is that this court the circumstances that face this office are undisputed this developed very very quickly she did not have hours to consider what her options are she didn't have time to consult with anyone it was her job to both protect the when police shoot somebody or beat somebody or if you use excessive force it's not something with planned for a week it's always something that happens around the time and they always say well twenty twenty hindsight but you're trying to have a somebody's death or very serious injury and they say well thought that was better because maybe other cops would be coming around the corner well you know it sounds to me from  to be mindful of the circumstance of the police officer is in at the time she makes that decision knowing that she has the obligation to stop and arrest this person and the obligation to protect the her fellow officers in so doing and whatever circumstance whatever decision her obligation is limited she doesn't have an obligation if you tried to flee her obligation is limited that you cannot is qualified immunity recognize that an officer may be mistaken at the time a decision is made but it asks if it says look if you're going to put these people in the situation where they have the obligation to up hold the law and to protect the public and in the heat of the moment they're faced with this difficult situation if i shoot i might feel this person if i don't shoot he might kill someone and that  rule but there are various stages of her actions and if she were immediately is the only things you are confronted with she walks out of the driveway and and she wants out of the driveway he is driving away spilling his tires in her view potentially endangering people that's a different from the his where he's in the car with the door to door lock from going with the keys trying to get a start and well at that point she has a wider range of alternatives so i'm not it is the split second analysis does not apply only to what she should have done as he drives away so for example when she comes up and says you know he may drive away river or a front of this kind of narrow what and that reminds me of something the court has stated it's there are when you're faced with the kind of circumstance she was faced with presumably different officers could respond to it in different ways but the fact that another officer may not have shot at that point or may have done something else is not the focus the question is under all the circumstances as she did she make a reasonable choice and objective leave reasonable choice and then it has to come back to also did she know at that time on or given all the facts that she knew given her actions at that time would any any reasonable officer have known that what she was doing was violating his civil rights and the answer that question has to be no by the way is it definitely safe to shoot the tires up over someone's got a car out the police officers don't do that we see it in the movies but that doesn't happen they're trained not to do that and i wish i was more up to speed on that or from a gun generation more than we are with you know shoot the gun it's just they don't shoot warning shots anymore either by simply shouting commands to get him to comply he wasn't going to do that then she decided to use blow blowing force to break up the window in his hand in a detention convince him that she was serious and to try to just to stall him for a question is remember that the the standard is one of objective reasonableness so it's not really important what was in her mind but what all the surrounding circumstances of work i got out of it ok we're way