aware of recent multiple robberies at dollar general stores in fort wayne typically there were two men part of the tide and confined employees waited for registers to open and they took the is reflected in the one on long haul that was made in this case officer daniel hartman arrived at the dollar general store went to the front door there were police officers in the back of the store the three officers were at the front of the door at the front door yelled stop it down the suspect ran officer hartmann was able to look at his hands saw that he did not have a gun in his hands and then or whether it was in the process of obeying the commands when hartmann fired and whether the plaintiff peden opportunity to obey the commands before hartmann fired do you agree that those are all a threat of serious bodily harm or death at hartmann at the time to discharge his firearm what's the question of war you want to distort the question of law is whether it was reasonable or robbery suspect who has already surrendered no i do not believe that's constitutional do you think it's constitutional to shoot an armed robbery suspect who is trying to surrender well it's based on what the reasonable officer would reasonably conclude based on what that officer knows and we know in this case that officer hartmann was aware that there were lots of well armed robberies at the dollar general stores before this incident it was typically two men that were arrested as was he trying to surrender the district judge found that the evidence presented a genuine dispute about that fact there's no argue with the district judge about  and whether it looked to hartmann what he was trying to surrender and whether herman gave him an opportunity to write what i'm saying is the district court was wrong and there are no disputed facts what the district  i wanted to surrender but i shot there's no evidence whatsoever that he was trying to surrender and it's on video he standing there upright with this hands down walking out the door there's no evidence what would wait to see if dan had a gun and he was going to be shot that officer would have been dead it takes longer to react to assess specter then what the suspect is the suspects and shoot the officer the officer can't wait he doesn't have the luxury to wait to in stating that those officers did not see a gun in anthony and but those officers were watching the first suspect run out of the store and go across the parking lot and they never looked there's no evidence they ever even looked at anthony  you i would that right it's our position if there are any facts that need to be resolved as in white and white versus dried on the fact that he knew the result was whether the suspect had his arms in the air in this case there's no evidence whatsoever that anthony can have his arms in the air this case is like ford vs child or seventh circuit decision in which an officer responded to a silent hold up at a bank the officer looked inside the bank he saw the last individual with his arm extended obstructed the officer's vision of the suspects and he did not know what the mass individual had anything in his hands the suspect ran out of the bank and he was shot in the back in that case the seventh circuit held that the officer's actions were just really reasonable when he shot the suspect and that a reasonable belief that danger exists may be formed by reliance on appearance and in that case this court held that there was no fourth amendment violation the fourth amendment does not require officers to wait until i suspect seems to confirm that a serious threat of harm exists nobody thinks that right but again the question of whether the force used was objective only reasonable is a is a question of law that's not a question of fact for the jury what the jury decides are factual disputes in this case there's been no evidence presented by the