i represent julie hough who is the appellant in this case summary judgment was granted against ms huff and in favor trooper reeves and sheriff lead better for this matter m tough went to the bank of you followed to check on her safe deposit box while she was there said rick norris enter the bank killed the bank president robbed the tellers simultaneously in her leg and her arm the only two law enforcement officers presence at that time were trooper reduce which was  left in front of her to her left and officer torics which was in front of her to her right the bullet hit her at the same time and she went on the ground at that point responsible for several things not only for improper trainings to provision but also for and i skipped over this because i got to the scene but even the monitoring of the dispatch there were two distinct frequencies which the officers were monitoring in particular trooper reeves there was a city just patched the officer tourist was on as a city officer and then a liable only if he was aware of problems and did not correct them is that a fair statement of what the legal standard is well i think i think clearly some of the policies don't address departments have to have policies against on how to deal with hostages that's a possibility i'm not aware of any cases saying that the absence of that sort of general rule it's got to be something that  sheriff was aware of that required a policy to prevent and constitutional conduct by its officers while not only hostage because deputy hall denies knowing that  the absence of these policies he's going to have a constitutional misconduct by his his people well i think it was clear that there was that there was going to be problems with the  adequate policies on this situation i don't have any specific fact that sheriff live better was ever put on any specific notice of deficient policies i don't have that fact but he did not think you need that you think did i'm not sure that's true supervisory liability if it's so obvious that you shouldn't do something it's so obvious that no officer should do it like shooting someone in cold blood then that might tell the supervisor i don't need a policy on that that of the people we hire would do anything so awful so that the what makes it obvious that the officer shouldn't do it they also make it less likely that a policy is needed would do well in this situation deputy hall if taken at his word to be true is that norris was laying on his stomach behind julie huff and he claims that and by the way this is after the trooper has already said that stay in his statement that he believed  that he was completely immobilize after all that is when deputy hall fired his shots imam lane on his stomach behind another alleged suspect involved in this appeal what is it that this sheriff should have anticipated well without getting dead he needed a policy to say don't shoot people who are apparently dead well again there were two distinct shooting scenarios the the st one as to trooper reaps if one of the bullets had to come from trooper reeves there were going to enforcement there at the time if you hall was not yet on the scene the ground with the suspect behind her and he was firing essentially through miss half to get to the suspect trooper reeves claims that he could not see julie  have what he claims then if that's the case he doesn't get the hostage to finance the rescue of the hostage but moreover the video evidence from the other troopers dash cam clearly shows that they were on level ground right next to each other it's simply not credible that trooper raef says he could not see julie hough when she was literally laying right next to cedric nourse moreover to wayne hall says he saw julie half because she was right in front of cedric no of the we have one of the of the ten wounds that julie hough has one bullet remains in her and that's in her groin area it cannot be removed because of its proximity from moral are very we did have that bullet analyzed by one of the world's preeminent ballistics person dr bennett onload who met was able to measure the size of the bullet and determine it to be at least to use term i'm sorry hall bullet struck or we don't have any bullets and missed from a forty five dollars caliber but but again using deputy hall's own statement it would have been impossible for him hearing let me just ask you right up so it doesn't go off what's wrong with mr ingles argument that the district court because the testimony from miss huff which seems like valid testimony repeatedly and when i say simultaneous the white mr eagle and the appellant can continue on is it's at the exact same moment meaning from two different people  miss miss hart didn't just kept the pa she got out of the vehicle and then ended up in the speech she testified that mr norris got out of the vehicle and fired two shots and then returned fire start and then so she wouldn't be killed according to her testimony which she believed that she was going to be killed by mr norris she got out exited from the driver's side she ran ran towards the fence line field for five feet and then turn the entire time that she's making those maneuvers and the entire time and it's true testimonies he never saw i know and that's know i think it's a very reasonable inference that well her hands were she was multiple times by officer reeves and what the judge said is there's no evidence to show that reeves was wrong when he said he didn't see her but she was visible there are people there so why can't the jury believe that he didn't see her there is no evidence your honor that i keep coming back to this that there is no he's being fired or whether or not this is how far and let me ask you if you take her testimony which is that she ran away from the other direction which makes sense right she's been assaulted and kidnapped and every other thing and she has her hands in the air do you say at that point if norris wasn't right next or that it was ok for the police officers to shoot well they ran in the same direction ok well let's do it this way yes and also assume that norris is not standing right next to her right behind her and that she has her hands in the air and the officer says you look like a bank by the way the record is will be before the court in the video that was pellets council mission wasn't even it was taken from a completely different angle from a completely location and what a sharper completely different perspective there's nobody that there's no evidence presented by the point of what true reeves perspective was they don't have to be the siren just because from one video go right for her and if he's the one for her it's completely reasonable that the police officers including trooper reeves are firing that he's an active shooter who has already attempted to shoot the law and there's another person there and they say bad person confederate vang bang and don't really pay much attention to the answer up or not if your hands are not as high as they should be but into i don't agree that that would that would be a reasonable inference under the facts of disconnects i think the facts of this case the one that is before the court and if there's are a record on don't include that in the absence of some evidence of where mr norris is which is already provided by the law enforcement officers the vehicle and her perspective from trooper reeves point or vantage point and because you're just not giving enough credit to other portions which you know she runs the other way she gets out of the car the other direction now i agree with you know that he probably if you were thinking would want to use her as a shoe but she runs away you say he's shooting and she doesn't report and i heard the gunshots right next to me in other words that norris is standing next to her nor does she ever see him in front of her and the st time that she even is thinking about norris is after she has been shot and she's on the ground then she says i sense that he was behind me which and fronts he saw her on the ground ran over behind her and used her for cover if the jury were to come back and find that that that's what happened i don't think we would reverse for lack of sufficient evidence is that what you're saying we would we should do pardon me wrong well if it's  found all of that and just relied on common sense as far as what happened day and it came back with the verdict then when you appeal and say that verdict can't stand because there cost it's want to count does he then test by north was standing right next to this lady and my hand was a little shaky and i thought so i might have had her accidentally there's nothing like that in the record no there's not the never saw for me that he didn't see her that's a testament you know he doesn't put norris right next to her at the time that she shot right well he of didn't present to the trial court hasn't presented here is any evidence from triplett reeves perspective and you your your honour's were correct in that it didn't work out i have not given any time  council keep saying that that there's no evidence that trip or reeves could see julie huff centric nurse who he claims he did steve the entire time was shot three times julie huff was shot who he claims he couldn't see was shot ten times at least four of those shots came from trooper reeves based on the steering numbers of bullet so the woman that he claims he couldn't see he shot her at least four times and the man he says he did see the entire day he only shot three times that alone as well as all the other evidence he saw julie have the entire time  shot her that's all thank you counsel and i also would like to give a shout out to one of the apple these attorneys i can remember which ones knowing the difference between lie and lay that distinction has pretty much