little confusing because of the now claim generally speaking you can't bring out unless unless unless the officer committed a constitutional violation so that's why people get confused and think if i care cybill it's not but it is because up it seems like it does seem like it's because up and so why it's not easy is your position that you can't ever unless it's vicarious liability something can't be because of you know in some ways liability can't be because of somebody else and if we don't let's say let's say we don't agree with you in euros but we don't have the last then the same thing will just come at it again or let's say we agree with you but we don't have the last then you're still going to let's not sure if i'm clear what i mean by my question like i'm saying that the general excessive force type claim you would agree since i t three looks to the relevant state law st that your limitations and also look for tolling the general angeles want this to be true that you can't like for instance your arguments that you can bring them and they'll claim even though the underlying ninety three dollars claim doesn't have merit and i don't think that's actually the law but why would you want to be a and i say exactly and in most cases they will the city of los angeles and the u s supreme court says if a person has suffered no cost to someone in injury at the hands of the individual police officer the fact that the department regulations might have authorized the use of constitution excessive force is quite beside the point and so generally speaking i mean maybe you're thinking of some futuristic scenario where the least but where that where the city's regulations send robots around that are by living people's constitutional rights or something but generally speaking it's officers that are accused of buying their rights and that and that the city's wrong training so i had understand your position i guess that that this doesn't that that that both in this case and in the in the general case not every case but in this case  the general case the monella violation is related to the officers actions so to answer your question judgment it constitutional violation may be committed by a medical professional in a jail may be committed someone a doctor in a jail or something like that a doctor still has to do something it's been around generally based on the doctor doing something wrong if the doctor did nothing wrong how could the training that means that a house to be just a peace officer because the legislative history shows that they're concerned about what the asian arrest the tension that there are there is no evidence of the legislative history to get it when certain about things like go to train or the i think we've kind of beat this dead horse here and we're in overtime but i will still give you we've asked you a lot of questions with the permission of my colleagues i'm glad i had just given two minutes on rebuttal and  you know i think that the questions at the nail right on the money i'll claim has been held consistently starting with the city of l a versus howard to be intertwined with the underlying civil rights  because of the intertwining you with just have to put evidence from one or the other and i and i it's hard for me to believe that people that bring these thoughts to one of the two separate trials at that kind of cost it's hard for me to believe that the that the cities that are defending the officers and the men now climbed to one of the two separate lawsuits out on the ground the practical side of this i'm not getting any practical help from from people fundamental fairness aspect of this which i think that you has about your question and he asked and this was this was for the record when we were going to see says the dilemma is that walking a defendant can proceed on  fifty three i'm not sure that of ours a claim as much as well as we as we borrow the state tolling in state here here's why i'm asking the question because if it doesn't bar the claim which i think i'm not sure it would because of the sovereign  limitations and also borrows tolling her there's a drive from state law but i don't know there's any case on a specific the weird that you would borrow a polling provision wind from state law that was predicated on the idea that you couldn't bring your claim if you weren't actually people that are prepared to be here today so i don't want to be overly harsh as far as that goes but and that and that district judge did say that this should go out and let's let three people it's just you know  at and it's not it and i think you probably have three judges here that are going to say we're not going to do their job if they did it if and but it seems really clear to me what's the good rule here what would be the rule that would make sense on the ground but too i think because if you you get a poll but you're not actually you know you're arguing like it makes sense to wait to bring your money up in but you would get to bring it right you when actually you might get state as you said but you're not actually barred from bring your monella claim  brady violations and then they sue the counties for d failure to train and all of the that those type of things that arguably if say that the county didn't train people on what a break you know what they have to discover and all of those type of things maybe the prosecutor might have have some sort of the manatee but the county for not training people for committee i don't know i get complicated in whether or not a bit now claim is intertwined or needs a peace officer violation of the law of the constitution supporting our claim at the end of the day the often issue is what does the california legislature intend and