that the court committed error and not permitting prior bad acts of the police officer simply put the defendant on the tavern kind of evening a woman rushed into the fair was that the by woman rushed into the paramus s and attacked another woman the defendant i strike at the kind of call the police place was there was another fighter of that you and he said that the plaintiffs smelled of alcohol and was rather incoherent the defendant arrives says to the person trying to subdue the officer subduing the person hey we're trying to help we call the police that's the attacker and the defendant cos but then gives him more instructions to turn and put his hands behind his back and he is i shot three more times with the taser  following that and the defendant attempted to preclude and did preclude acts of prior conduct the playoff then decided well there must be something there so the articles were given through the defendant a plaintiff which alleged thirty seven prior tasing to our suits comment by the federal in the newspaper comment by the so it's down to manifest where the evidence if we can take evidence all in favor of the defendant arm the evidence would indicate that it's against america fest where the evidence because the officer tasered him three times while he was on the ground and we believe that's police the court counsel of your honor's all this evidence was presented to the jury the argument the plaintiff appears to be making  the reply brief is that because there was medical testimony that could not lift his arm above his chest or his nipples necessarily the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence well the problem with that is that the evidence was sharply disputed as to what occurred when deputy koster arrived on the scene deputy koster never he never told him to races are plaintiff's credibility was quite frankly shattered during trial because his evidence his testimony was contrary not only to what deputy koster testified to but also sergeant butcher sergeant butcher was the first one to arrive on the scene he testified that the plaintiff was intoxicated storing his words and refusing to obey his commands he was trying to break up a fight this was a very fluid situation there were five arrests that occurred during this melee the notion that this court should substitute its judgment for the judgment of the jury because of medical testimony that he could not lift his arm is simply unsupported by the record period the testimony was that  when mr koster got there he repeatedly instructed him to get back he refused he tried to escort him away from the scene he shouted after warning him repeatedly telling him to sit down on the ground which he refused to do and warning him again he finally taste that he told him when the taste stop said you need to stop resisting instead he tried to pull the wires out that continued to happen and when another scene when another officer arrived they finally were able and they handcuffed and we cited the cases this is a jury question simply put there is no basis for this court to reverse on a manifest weight of the evidence standard with respect to the newspaper articles i will only say this if you look at those articles what they're talking about you've got a reporter who has a beef with deputy costal he's referring to all these other cases and he's also  summarizing what judge meyer scoffs at another case less not the case that we're dealing with here period and the thirty seven tasing she's talking about the only reference to any of that is in a newspaper article where the plant where  iff counsel is alleging according to the newspaper article that in the scoobie case which involved completely different fact there were thirty four tasers book cases by this officer from two thousand and five when he started until two thousand and twelve what are we going to litigate all those you've got a seven year period that's three or four taes in g year you've got an offshoot on the street dealing with these types of situations