a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity the doctrine of qualified immunity provides three successive layers of protection for police officers who find themselves in with a situation in which they come onto a scene where they do not know any of the players and they don't know what led to the provocation all that they know is that they have seen somebody  that you know things worse that things were done which were which indicated that the victim was a police officer right and the question is well should these officers have then the smaller man the smaller man falls to the ground when the smaller man is on the ground and helpless the larger man pulled out a gun and pointed directly at his head he turns to look at the police officers who are fully armed police car with lights flashing full police uniform and instead of dropping the gun instead of stepping back even though the man on the some distance from the incident when the initial confrontation occurs he doesn't see the the initial confrontation he's not in a position to  closest contact with mr wilkins never recognized him as a police officer the officers never recognized that the police officer because he never engaged in any actions that they saw that with consistent with him being a police officer and that's the ground had on a red shirt i think that was the only the red shirt was the only thing that was consistent with the description the description was of the hispanic wearing a red shirt do you draw from that was in fact the plaintiffs want to draw the conclusion that because there's a man of a different race wearing a red shirt and on the ground that therefore the man holding the gun on him must be a police officer that's what i mean i jury question on the issue of the fourth amendment the fourth amendment says that an officer is entitled to summary judgment it's the force used to subjectively reasonable that doesn't mean netflix's that line between you're entitled to use firing a weapon two times but not three times three times but not five times you have to remember we're talking about a human being here  initial need for words and then the later firing of the weapon in other words you had a situation in which the opposite were fired as a weapon there was a break in the action the imminency of the threat had cleared and pulled when the second round of shots required there wasn't any for for for the weapon to be fired and you have to remember here that we're talking about a human being who's  officer conan was very clear to people that he was bracing himself people leave but he was about the latter and with the blood of the man who was on the ground he believed that that the firing of the weapon was that's about thirty thirty five feet maybe forty feet away at the most while the statements being made by a police officer who says he wanted other officers to cure him a jury could conclude that they in fact heard that and are denying it now the other statement was minimum after a warning and give and give in a few seconds for something to happen is ronnie showing above all these are stretched pulled up at the scene or yes you know what was that the officers to a particular location they don't go there because they say they are unhappy with the fact that they believe the suspect has already left from that point and they want to be in the action so they disregard an order they go to where they find these two individuals and that's where right where they see these two individuals warning even though other people say he didn't so they should not be in a position to say a warning was not possible some circumstances a person can be charging at an officer with a weapon and the officers entirely justified in keeping to him in continuing to pull the trigger until that threat stops but here would answer well can drop this gun right established what it is that clear enough that reasonable officers would have known at the time and that's what we're talking about and and it's an unusual situation here where we have two other reasonable asters on this both who testified to what they this is not just about what these officers should have done in the five or ten seconds in which they were out of the car it's what reasonable lobsters would have done that's the issue for both the underlying fourth member claim effort qualified immunity and so we need to consider what would reasonable officers have perceived that these officers say they didn't perceive and what would reasonable officers have investigated where with what else what other information would they have allowed them understand that he was you're entitled to qualified immunity in a proper case even where you use force which is of actively unreasonable and if they were mistaken about the need to use force it was also reasonable because they believed that if they delayed even for an instant they would have committed a murder to take place this is exactly the circumstance for which qualified immunity is designed the court should refer to the district court and direct the cork to enter judgment for the