net the officers had lighted a clearly established riot by using non lethal force on this radley to affect the arrest it is our  position that the court misapplied the shackleton decision in this case because the facts are not similar to the facts before the court today they're not similar in these respects and shackleton and officer driving bob barr saw what he thought was a fight or an encounter outside a bar between a gentleman and the bartender he turned around the officer did what back to the  and at that after he got back to the scene the event had already deescalated the bartender had gone inside the bar and the man remained and then the officer began questioning this was a small vigorously i have the that morning well i don't think the record profit the principal of the school to call for security that is correct your honor do we know what what we know submitted there was another school official by the name of the jury more who helped officer bryant as court the mother and the son out to the car jury moore was the one that was trying to and he was in a place of three didn't have a gun or anything but he worked for the school he helped officer bryant escort the mother and the son out to the car he was the is that's all yes that's that's exactly right and what we have in this there is no clearly established law we're a person in this case the son was being arrested and there's no dispute of facts in the record it's admitted that the mother ran and inserted herself between the s shackleton officer knew that the guy could not move his arm he knew what kind of condition he had he was a well aware of the person he was arrested and yet he forced of the man's arm behind his back anyway it's not analogous to the brown case where judge wellman wrote the lead opinion in two thousand and then and in that particular case mr brown she was not observed the action in his affidavit he says he saw the officer region four is a gun others she says there was no warning before the the action was taken from the video we can see from the video that she is the aggressor she turns to him and she says white m f or and she turns toward the officer in which at which time he he uses the taser on her again if you feel physically threatened well yes or from his perspective this is what he perceived one he was told that they were violent or that the mother was v inside the principal's office by throwing the book he knew that the son had been involved in a fat at the school only a week or so beforehand so he was escorting the two of them to the car to get her id and this other person mr moore was with it but unlike for example in in the in the brown case dead woman if you recall there were four or five officers outside the car by mr brown and all she did was call nine one one and they taste her because she would not hang up the phone these facts are nowhere the mother made contact with the officer but when he was kind of affect the rest on the son he perceived that as a threat he was trying to control the scene the scene as the as again the district court said after the watching the video that the scene was chaotic in combat chaotic in combat that's what the court district court said in the opinion the scene was chaotic in combat this is not was he told her that he told her that she was a note from the video he told her that she was under the officer says he told her he was under arrest when she and ser he tries to three times but the video shows that there's no there's no threat to the bumping happened right when she put herself between the officer and and her son that's correct that ok so that wasn't like she got in between and then dropped him well it was i'm not sure that i don't want to mistake yeah what my recollection is that the bumping happened when driver's door and she somehow got between the officer in the sun and that's when the bumping occurred that's very different though than then taking an additional action to try to bump the officer that would be more aggressive than bumping him when your inner jack to yourself i think unlike unlike you for example the case the blade was johnson versus carroll were the aunt was protecting her nephew in that case the nephew and took him to the ground in a totally what the court referred to as a protective maneuver that's no we have here this is not a protective maneuver she is trying to prevent the officer from effectuating the rest of her son after the sun makes terroristic threats to the office what did the officer what did officer bryant know about what happened in the principal's office the brief isn't the preacher not very specific about it and i'd like to know exactly if the officer sad if used to the posed or whatever i'd like to know exactly what he said about that going to the officers affidavit and well according to the principals affidavit when he called security and officer bryant came up he also brought new at that that they would call in security because as the principal said she threw a book at him he knew she threw a book that was his perspective his very relevant as well as officer brian if he knows that you already took aggressive action against the principal that would be very relevant to how he viewed her out on the out in the parking lot well he knew that security was called for a reason and he knew that there was an altercation this security resource officer he's actually there to protect the teachers and the students that's what brian but he works for the city a little rock of the law enforcement officer what experience shows and the and the district court acknowledges that she says to the officer bryant that wait a minute and after and then he says you're under arrest and then she turns toward him and then that's when he he tells this are again our taser first and this piece of paper want to show the officers something about her son's medical condition well that's that's the that's the facts that the judge has assumed to be because nothing to do with the case well according to the district deads that was the reasoning for him there was a need for that force and so tasing someone three times under this under these facts are unreasonable and i depends though i mean i get back to this i want to know exactly what the officer was told by the principal because if she threw a book at the principal and was aggressive towards the principal and then interjected herself between or sign and the officer i'm not sure sure the tasing was unreachable much last violated a clearly established right and  don't know what the facts actually say what what do what do we know from the officer or from the principal as to what the officer was told do we know it it seems to me that i'm getting a lot of cryptic answers and that to me is is an important fact right and that's why these are facts in dispute that a trier of fact to decide so tell me what the dispute is the dispute is that whether that officers were aware of the injuries the minor at the time of the actually in the not interesting that i'm talking about what the principal told the officer vehicle and at that time she had been asked for her id she was looking for her id the officer was demanding that she show her id and then this is when the the altercation occurred she it but here's the problem if the officer knew let's just change the facts ever so slightly let's suppose and i know these aren't these facts she punches the principal in the face the principal then tells the officer she just punched me in the face he takes her out she then or jacks or self between her side and the o later and i believe if he's a testing that he knew that the son was involved in a fight then why why are they being selective about what they knew about they knew about the injury fight but they didn't know about his injuries i'm talking about the coughing that that he had been struggling before he got caught is not right and i wrong about that well i think on the video it is chaotic it appears that when been goes to the other officer and that is when there's the struggle between the two of them and it's not quite clear whether he's resisting or if he upset about his mom his affidavit indicates he ran to the other officer to get assistance for his not just trying to figure out to be honest with you i asked the question directly if he's struggling or or interfering or whatever then and even if they knew about his injury getting jurisdiction argument what if you know what if we say yeah there's disputed issues but none of them are material would we have the jurisdiction to say that and therefore because they're not material we're going to reverse the district court's decision because the on this record entitled because the the officer was entitled to officers or in time of the qualified immunity well i think these are all material disputed bags because i mean a and i don't think that she was i think in that in that's a question that's in dispute i think these are are questions for the trial that to decide whether she was resisting whether she was about whether saddam was violent whether the threat was real whether they posed ground by the officer and he end the sun with lifting her that's when the video start was the first the tasing was after she was being lifted up from the ground that was the first i guess no that was the taste she had she had been pushed to the ground it was for the first yes yes it starts at after the video starts at the tape at the time of the taking and i believe that's all i have an