me all what calmly yes your honor you must not look at the video when it ceases when the interaction with mrs craig began his choice of words was once the actual arrests began the amount of force used was no more than necessary to place handcuffs on these suspects counsel do we have to be able to tell that from the  video whether the amount of force was reasonable or not because when we can't measure the amount of force that we see in the video is that a problem for your position and maybe for our jurisdiction the because the district court did not analyze the evidence including the video including affidavits including some range of discovery materials or what else what part of the discovery affidavits from only two of the plaintiffs in this case and that's another problem they have but in addition to whether or not they can establish any underlying their job is to show that any violation was a violation of clearly established law such that they are able to show as to each claim the use of force that the law was so clearly established that the has repeatedly said is not only difficult but is being misapplied but isn't it clearly established that a police officer cannot strike an unresisting suspect while making an  that were if there were an example of that is always a clearly established legal proposition it would also depend on other circumstances but if here the burden is on the point of to produce case law to this court that shows asking i mean if they've cited darden and they've cited sam those are the two cases they cited as a don't do in those cases clearly established that it is unconstitutional to strike another resisting suspect w affecting an arrest while in the context of those cases that is the is the case but those cases do not meet the plaintiffs burden for two reasons number one they're both two years to such it's so far removed from anything remotely related to this case that it can't possibly be applicable it was a drug seizure where the suspect died of a heart attack after a long struggle has nothing to do with the facts of this case in the same case a suspect clip from the police for a brief distance laid down put his hands behind his head did nothing else in the court found that the summary judgment record in that case provided that the officer need him so hard in the hip that he had to go to the hospital scrapes face on the ground and arm on the ground to the point that he drew blood struck him and slapped him for no reason apparently because he was mad at him for running but that's examined the holding in in the van case and said the reason that that's the law is that you can't be reversing a district court judge for not relying on cases that were never presented to him and so in this case they didn't meet their bur district court and even if you were to give them a nd chance on their briefing here they have admitted here they cited two cases two years too late on different facts what they need to do in this case with is with respect to each use of force with respect to her craig and the video we can take me what's that case from the supreme court scott got to hear me we can take the scott route is this your argument and say well look we looked at the video and it blatantly contradicts this allegation so thrown to the ground so they beat that they didn't show up in there they don't have evidence to support that the evidence that they do put on them is that officer martin was holding her by the arm as she was going to the ground while he was being pushed from behind and push to warn the crowd to get back that is the classic not every push or shove example of force he if anything lower serve the ground he's a heat they admit in their briefing he's got a hold of her arm and she goes to the ground it's such a non use of for such a non excessive use of force that it's plain from the video and from their allegations and from the context of everything that's happening that that is not the type of a th amendment violation that this court considers to be actionable it lowers craig to the ground and there's no there's no case law that they've presented that says when you're under such a scenario that this officer was under and it was a hostile loud he was being yelled at and physically pushed while this was happening that he's not allowed to help lower a person to the ground who he has the lawful right to arrest you for saying the parson that physically pushed him was h whatever she did to police it's all happening pretty simultaneously she pushes them in the back he's ordering her to the ground she's going to the ground apparently voluntarily it prised people hold her with one hand if she's going down in front of him he tells her to move she won't he says you're going to jail if you don't move she says i don't care and he uses a clearing maneuver pushes her on her shoulder pusher out of the way the calmest possible response to an outright physical aggressive confrontation that an officer could ever be expected state he pushes her out of the way she backs up gets into a fighting stance hitches up her pants as if she's going to fight him he pulls out her taser and says don't do it you need to back it up she finally relents backs up he puts his taser back up tries to take them to the car he's putting j h in the car she won't get in the car he finally has one hand on one arrest a person is craig one hand on the door and he uses his foot to push  jay ages legs into the car and i cite a case where an officer doing the same thing broke the suspects leg and it wasn't an excessive force case because he had the right to get the person in the car here certainly all he did was push her into the car when she clearly was not going in there and play this can present no case law that clearly establishes what he did with respect to j h was unconstitutional and it's the same for everybody in this case the plaintiffs simply have not met their burden to show that officer martin loses his qualified immunity under the circumstances the case is unfortunate because the white began it was a violent hostile situation to begin with and officer martin didn't help when  he st got there was some unfortunate choice of words but that's not the measure the measure is what he did when he made his use of force decisions and it is reports already held he had the right to arrest all these plaintiffs and when he began to do so he came under assault  with their own lawful arrest claims in this case and what happened to the yester owner and those were dismissed on a motion to dismiss the district court found that the all the arrests were lawful or that officer martin is not before the court well they couldn't write they couldn't raise a lawful arrest because unless the unqualified and the qualified immunity aspect they kind of raised but not the rest and i forget what the album was that he dismissed but that's would taken with honestly if you divorce yourself from any thought you you have that officer martin behave poorly in the beginning the most routine use of force that this court will ever see as to all of these  i don't remember the exact charges weighted with drop i think all the charges were dropped the analysis of courses was there say pushed the officer from the back of the person in the black church you want to arrest that's because you thought bria hyman was the one who had pushed him now where is where do we find that he thought that what what document we find that in there would be in his clearly established issue i'd like to respond to the arguments that were just raised as mystery's noted we did litigate the dark dark matter together and it's correct the opinion did come out in two thousand and thirteen but that doesn't mean it's too late because the cases that dar relied on when saying the proposition that you can't punch straight push hit or use any swimming violence against a non resisting compliance suspect that's a pretty broad proposition so if you if you could draw my attention to a case relied on by darn that has facts someone analogous to the situation that would have guided the officers conduct i can do half of those things right and i'll explain why this court relied of bush versus strain in the garden case which is a two thousand that the officer gets qualified immunity if you can point me to an analogous case quite the opposite here on the standard is whether a reasonable officer would know that what he is doing is unconstitutional and the one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven the supreme court what what is so outrageous that he did that means you don't need an analogous case it's just an obvious case which have rages your honor is this officer was responding to our clients call for help and rather than help he berated them and insulted them until they got angry you know lots of video he did not be right you should say separate calm he might have made some poorly chosen statements such as what's wrong with that and why don't you teach him up the letter correct very very poor choice of words but a woman called the police because a man in the neighborhood choked her son that's that's not what we're here about pushing actually both that i meet you he was describing his as a forceful push in the back of the video plainly describes the opposite it literally shows a young fourteen year old girl bump him in the back but the idea that this officer is looking at three people who are clearly unarmed who are not looking for a fight not looking to start not this is so different than all of the other cases where you have to think it's ironic that we need to get to the physical contact ok let's go eat it not what they'd just so i'm clear unreasonable conduct you know he's he's talking to her and then the j h runs between them so start right there and let's go let's talk about cricket st this craig is talking to the officer when he makes the comment about her parenting she gets agitated j h appears to come up and pull him on that say mom he's threatening to arrest you let's not go there the officer for whatever reason sees the approaching of this fifteen year old girl as you know in approaching attack you know it feels like that i do not think that is reasonable for someone darting up when you're when you're facing someone and someone is darting up between you woman and when you look at the facts of this case and that's why the jurisdictional issue here is so important if two reasonable people could look at the same facts and come to different conclusions that's not a proper subject for resolving a summary judgment  the video blatantly contradicts your allegations treacher i think that's a very good point because i believe mr reese is a very reasonable person as are all three of you and just in your discussion with him it's quite apparent that there's a difference of agreement or difference of opinion  when they're when they're being accosted  crimes such as c class misdemeanors when there are no weapons involved and that the three factors that we look at as there are reasonable threat to the officer safety is there anybody attempting to flee and he asked her to go to the gram one before that point no you know in fact it was he had made the call he made the comment about why don't you teach your children not to litter she became agitated and it was at that point that he said why are you yelling at me if you don't stop you're going to go to jail that's when the daughters intervened and i think he perceived it as they were coming at him and he believed we could convince a jury that they were coming to save their mom and keep him from going to jail and that's that's the factual disputes are what we what was actually not what did he do to craig i want you to tell me he put his hand on our arm and what do you that's one person's opinion respectfully or i think somebody by disagree for example is craig you know who could tell you it was at the when she was feeling i think she's on the ground on it at some point in time the other two daughters and try to remember the sequence one of them is arrested and is placed in the car oh no no you got miss crags on the ground yes then we next have the fourteen year all the fifteen year old j of the daughters was punched in there in the sternum when she was different ok we were talking about the daughter who's in the police car who's not getting in the police car in the you know i mean you can see on the video the officer kicks at her to hostile crowd screaming yes right they were screaming right now so take us to the to the rd one the k h the fourteen year old at least she was coming up out of essentially asking what he was doing and she wouldn't move argue your honor that she was not interfering with their arrest but soever you know she did have the physical capacity interfere with their arrests she was i know she's a fourteen year old girl she heads at the crying disturbed about the fact that all of this was happening but i don't think she had the physical capacity to interfere with the arrest of someone the size of her what was he supposed to do with up in the video i mean we've watched it she's walking up to him she's very agitated i think it's fair to say situation down by not continuing to yell at them and continue to try and round of everyone that's in the scene put them in a police car but instead recognize ok we've got a giant misunderstanding here i didn't mean to upset you with me to hurt your feelings i'm clearly not in danger nobody has any weapons everyone is free to go let's figure out why i'm here in the st place any weapons as a police officer having to react that quickly one thousand on no one has weapons i think you're not helping your seen the video and i wanted to address a couple of legal points no less than any of you now you've got this woman in the black church call for backup for that she was the one who was yelling at him most forcefully and she was doing that was videotaping the it's just tragic the perception about what the police do and what they intend she was angry and i think that would certainly seem to submit that she probably said things to offset that she ordinarily would not have so what we're concerned about is what do they have to do to her that is allegedly creates fact issues to excessive force i think that her description of the pain that the officer inflicted on her that's a description of pain what did he do he had to have terri he pushed her he raised her arms up actions such that he would have known any reasonable officer would have known what i'm doing here is wrong unconstitutional i think bush versus stream is the best one that we saw that cited in sam and in darden the again the the the general because you're never going to have identical factual circumstances but on the flip side that means that everybody gets to hear any officer can do something unconstitutional once and as long as he's the he or she is the st person to do it you know they get a get out of jail free card and that's that's not good policy basically saying any contact of any kind you know is unconstitutional more i mean he left her arms and that's excessive force you're now missing that i gets when he's kicking and very least reasonable people could disagree as to whether it was a sounds like what chief judge owen just said that we can arrest the officer can arrest her but you just said any contact with her would be excessive force what is he supposed to do that's the other just to fifty's two young girls that are walking his direction you know is the appropriate thing to do to say ma'am you have outstanding warrant i have to take you in please turn around please comply or is it to say kids you know i've talked to your mom about something here this is important you know whatever it can be but the point being is violently excuse me pushing a woman to the ground in front of her children under those circumstances were contending was excessive and this is a video show how many people were so that shows him running down the street i believe it does show that there were some other people on the street throughout the altercation i mean the honest us focusing more on my clients than other people that might have been in the background but there may have been other people in the areas th in order to address one comment of judge barksdale that i think may avoid confusion when viewing the video later k aged the fourteen year old is wearing a black turtleneck covered by a black hoodie which she takes off between the time she pushes officer martin and later comes back and stands in front of them same person you can tell by the face you can tell by the photographs in the briefs and if you look at page twenty two of and orders everybody to the ground he would and if he had approached a person on their own with a classy warrant and somehow violently threw them to the ground because a classy warrant in an strength but he was using grip strength in the forward motion the pressure to get her down but i think it's clear from the video he wasn't pushing pressure on her to go to the ground she goes to the ground very slowly and he was holding her trying not to lose a grip of her painful handcuffing isn't enough stapling i mean i guess just to pick up on what you were saying to judge owen i mean it's at a certain level it's impossible to tell from a video the degree of grip strength nobody can know that but but in scott it's is it do i get from your briefs that both sides agree that we should make our own assessment of the record here instead of reminding us your honor in a footnote in apple lee's briefs they agree that that would be the most economical way for this court to proceed especially in light of the need to resolve qualified immunity at the earliest possible stage and recognizing the immunity from the lawsuit not just from liability i don't think anybody disagrees with that  with regard to the debris hymens matter again if you'll read those declarations that will form your perception i think the appropriate view of that is the resistance she was using to him even while he was trying to hold her