of summary judgment here amounted to reversible error because the officers conduct did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and or either of the statutes and no clearly established law would have told them that it did  first i just wanted to note the dispute about the shock the conscience versus subjective reasonableness standard this court adopted the objective reasonableness standard for this time period which is after a someone has been arrested but before there have gone to a hearing but that it direction was after this incident so the argument that was made below in which we maintain on appeal that the proper standard for considering clearly established law should be using the shock the conscience standard but what i thought would be most helpful to the court in terms of the discussion might be to focus  why the district court's analysis was wrong and inconsistent with the authority from this court in the supreme court the district court's opinion was eroni as in a number of ways and i think  number of them individually and certainly cumulatively require reversal in order for this decision to be consistent with what this court has said from the district court improperly focused on a sort of heightened rhetoric in the language that davis used davis used terms like slammed and so forth in this court in the chapel decision made clear that somebody using those kinds semantic words in order to create an impression of force when the actual neutral words show that the kind was reasonable under the circumstances oughtn't be a factor in the analysis secondly the district court really feel to view the facts from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene who is faced with entice a kid inmate who is non compliant had had some are in this case and i understand the vast but he of law about johnson versus jones in this court's assumptions however this is an instance where the district court is looking at no facts in support of that conclusion when all of the testimony i don't believe so i thinks god the hero second guess is factual his to the forgive the district judges judge lawson we have to second guess judge lawson's determination as to what facts there's a genuine issue with with regard to i think in this case what the district court did was reached a conclusion and not like i'm not trying to quibble i'm truly not i know this is the crux of the issue that's why i'm asking right right i think because this correct and if they had the video to look at which concluded that which made it clear that the certain circumstances were the case and this idiot e o doesn't tell us whether he was non compliant or not  appeal let's let's let's talk about what there is in this record i want to talk about what the district court assume subject to things that we are compelled to believe by the video that's what i'm viewing about i can't speak for my colleagues but i think that's what the last write it says you just stuck with what the district court thinks the record will allow a jury to come to accept that there's a or right perimeter around out which says if it just can't be accepted compared to objective lee compelling evidence then we'll go without i had a fair standard of what we're supposed to be doing and i mean  jury had that evidence no reasonable jury could ignore it and in this case i think that same analysis applies what you have in the lower court record is you have entirely consistent testimony from a number of officers you have a video that is entirely consistent with their testimony you have been incarcerated person who is now the plaintiff who gave testimony which even the plaintiff's counsel admits i not credible is completely inconsistent with many of the statements that he made about the sequence of events in what happened during the events and all the way it goes to credibility and suppose try to some of which i'm not going to repeat here but but what it does i mean the language isn't the point the point is when you look at the video when you look at the video you see th shoes come flying out in an aggressive manner you see that you see that they're trying to take his jacket off you see that and he is rolling around and resisting why are they taking its jacket why are they taking his shoes f we look at this video and are not compelled which you say we will be but we are not compelled to the conclusion that he was not compliant if that's the case then you lose the subpoena so i correct or not i don't believe so then i don't understand your view of the law because i thought that's the way the law was which is we go with what the district court assumed unless we're compelled by the video to come to a different factual assumption and here i'm going to come back to a point that you may not agree with but i'm going to make it and that is yes if there is a factual dispute that is one thing but in this case what we have is a video and i understand what you're saying if you don't feel that you're compelled what you have are inferences making it again and well ok at least some of us are going with the majority in the room and i understand i do ok i do maybe i should save the rest of my time for it but if i thank good morning others david lake on behalf of the police fernando davis just to clarify your honour's it's the police opinion that he is certainly demonstrated genuine issues of material fact with respect to the excessive force that was used against him in march of two thousand and nine hundred one and why don't you make a jurisdictional argument here while your honor is certainly we we should have i guess address that but we  we addressed exactly what was set forth in the appellant's brief and address those but i think the court is correct that there certainly is a jurisdictional issue that could be raised as far as the video there's been judge lawson noted in his opinion and it's a fact that the that the appellant cannot overcome this was a compliant person and what so what is our role now at this point and these are the this video because we have two completely different characterizations this morning by counsel in terms of how we should view this video i think the video and i have my own view of it but how how do we what is what is our role how do we well i think judge rogers was correct in his analysis that if you find that it's completely different a differing view of what judge lawson noted as his observations in the video at the lower court level i think at that point you would be obligated to make a decision but it certainly isn't inconsistent with what judge lawson concluded as to the genuine issues of material fact with the differing versions of what each party say in this matter and there's really not a whole lot more to the argument i think we've set forth in our brief if you have any questions i have to take them now they're not thank you thank you ff was compliant walking through at the start is not really the issue the question is once they were trying to move him to a safety for his own safety in trying to avoid agitating the other people in the general holding cell then the question is was he compliant and if he was not was the force used reasonable in relation to what they were trying to accomplish and i did watch the  video you will have to watch the video enjoy your own conclusions but from my perspective you say professional officers use a shoe flying out you saw someone struggling as they were trying to remove a jacket the shoes and the jacket have strings which are very dangerous for people particularly people who go into jail who are already in tax acadia there's a higher risk of suicide the officers have to deal with that and in that circumstance some minimal force being necessary in any number of situations and this was one of them it seems to me the  authority is controlling here and so i would urge the court to look at that and to reach that conclusion i'm happy to answer other questions but if not i will give back the remainder