thank you but i think the most interesting thing about this case is a decision that came down in january of this year called smith versus city of hemet that's from this court three ninety four a little bit more time than just the nation but this court has come around to say hey these coupons if you so much damage to people under circumstances that are often not really warranted especially in hindsight  basically from what i can ascertain in the early trial to think the jury was basically you know presented with all the facts what happened from when i think the border called the police and then there were you know so the jury actually heard those incidents and they come down after the whole thing and find in favor of essentially the officers and in this situation after hearing nat and so they didn't get to hear all of that and obviously the ceased i mean it's an incredibly tragic situation and i think anyone would disagree with that is a person with you know mental illness issues but nevertheless the jury heard certain facts about you know he's been threatening the border previously they're called and they're stabs to the canine and then i guess one of the officers actually gets  the person is shot and i think that he has the money and arms and you know it's not like mentally ill people can't be dangerous either and sometimes there's some belief that they might even be more dangerous just because they don't understand it doesn't make it less tragic that i as a former trial judge it seems like that yuri got to hear all the facts you're coming back from that i agree i understand that and i think trial as kind of like getting my skeleton to trial when i should have had my whole person there i mean by the time i got my dealings in theory to trial i didn't have a jury that was going to say hey what happened with the canine was that independent decisions along the way what was the error i mean if the jury heard the case and to say that adverse to you i mean what what's the legal or the error is that we should have had the right to first of all have the canine issue could have easily in fact i would so it that the jury did say well we're not so impressed with the canine attack but you know by the time the guys over there stabbing the officer or if he's trying to you know we have reservations about that view because we didn't get a fair trial on that on the stabbing stuff and we'll talk about that but it's not overall i would say self defense applied but we were entitle to just have more than just overall you know by the time he  was the trial lawyer in this case and i've never been treated so badly  experts i don't think this was the greatest way to handle jennifer shen the i r s with the way the district judge did it i understand your point what hangs me up a little bit though is that apparently she was disclosed as a potential witness she had prepared strace evidence report that had been turned over to you so even though i don't think this was the proudest day i kind of wonder what harm happened and i think i'm handed but when all is said and done what will what was say well we snuck her in somewhere in the materials and we didn't tell you she was an expert i mean i just would i would hate to think the practice of law is now going to be advanced by and this is not the judge's fault but the other lawyer if i were learning from this case i would start why i would start lying to the other lawyers not putting things in an expert reports of them somewhere in the materials  and then trying to argue my way out of it if trial and i just can't i really sincerely think that it's a terrible precedent for the laws of go that way especially now when you know there's so much gamesmanship in the law i to think about what's fair and what kind of projection it wants to maintain for the practice of law because it's if this kind of conduct is approved or at least overlooks then it becomes the standard by which unscrupulous lawyers prosper and the laws are too good for that the officers theory of using the canine was that like any other tool i use my chills the suspect has to go down and i'm going to first tell him to go down i'm going to hit him that i'm going to clearly established that at that time and in other words i respect that she did say that under the plaintiff's view we could have a finding of liability but she said that you know other time in the you had ten hours to act out something real you know now actually he said look you know what he said in the record i don't want to hurt this guy and i don't want to i don't want to look like i'm going to beat him up if i take him down myself and the moderate muslim too hard i'm going to look like i did up an old man i'm go people there at the scene you know independent of police procedure they knew that he wasn't a dangerous guy they could take him in three weeks before that without any kind of assault of conduct and here this particular but when you want when you know it's a mentally ill guy i guess you know i really maybe i just read too much into your early but i really think that the law has gone in two ways that are favorable to my case there has been more recognition and more appreciation that mentally ill subjects are as dangerous as they really appear to be compared to rational actors and you have a whole you know hands a string of mentally ill cases that demonstrates more sensitivity to them and then in addition to that we also have a stands testimony is an issue here and without universals testimony or without it being so very effective because we didn't we weren't really treated fairly in a challenging it you can't say that the  testimony was not properly received he gets a new trial disney i would agree that if you find that the trial court of used her discretion in the way that she handled jennifer's chand that you could i believe that the and then of better scenario the attorney trying this case would have designated her as an expert in accordance with rules the issue i think here is you brought up is what's the harm although it may not have been handled was he somehow harmed by the fact that she was not listed as an expert i think that the attorney for the police and the defense conceded the trial and to the truck or i would said that here we are now i believe that she can testify in the court and maybe should have remembered that her testimony to her findings and not allowed her to testify as to her opinion but in reviewing the case and her expert witnesses are it's a style i have out of the record information on that but to stay with the record i think that there was clear from the record in the testimony and the argument before the trial court that he he is not in a position to argue that he was treated unfairly when he didn't seek to take her deposition he didn't seek a continuance of a trial he didn't speak any alternate remedy to to mitigate what he felt was this horrendous they ended up and in spite of the in spite of the ruling in the summary judgment that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity plaintiffs at the time now palace were able to get all the evidence they wanted to verdict which is a much lower threshold i believe than a violation of constitutional rights and not only did they find that the lethal force was justified they found that there was no negligence on the part of the officers and how this ended up occurring i don't believe that inch of documents that were in the actual that's certainly part of the record and that's just something that should never happen with respect  jury has found that the canine was improper then we would have been home free underlings and you know it's one thing to knock off your case to chip away at the outside of your case but that really was our he