qualified immunity issue and involves officer dunn and krieger of the green bay police department the authority for this is  are dealing with a mentally ill man who is dealing with a man who was completely compliant went and sat on the couch waited for a protective sweep waited as the officers walked towards the kitchen him and at that moment they had talked with the mr baker they said how many pills did you take any he said three and they looked at three bottles on the without talking so lonely without finding out what the problem was from his perspective the concept of special rule that would  stern i'm sure you're aware that this circuit came against hendricks county as dealt very recently with a similar case in which a mentally disturbed person particular case they immediately grabbed him without any explanation whatsoever and the fact that he hadn't committed a crime or anything within the presence of the officer indicated any  i i do believe that in this case the politics we have a sense of an officer pouncing  citizen you're not saying anything about came the holding in that case was the police were entitled to use deadly force when a mentally disturbed person approached them holding a no what as i understand what's happened here tonight was actually still against a police officer it seems very hard to distinguish a case saying deadly force may be used and dealing with the standards for ready one of the decisions of the trial judge was that local regulation cannot be the standard and i agree with that police officer would do that would make a certain action or inaction clearly established and the rest of my time y it is clear from a review of the case was both of the united states supreme court and of this district court of appeals that there are two categories of cases that come into play where officer been called to a scene where they're dealing with a mentally ill and suicidal individual and are eventually shot by those officers and killed the cat is very clear  the st category as well as the nd category in the st category being situations where the actions of the officers were found to be reasonable under the th amendment and that is the supreme court case the united states supreme court cases in this category officers of being called to these scenes to render aid encountered violent reactions from the individuals they were dealing with versus mcclellan type cases and in the type of cases which are completely different than the facts and are bigger case from this perspective both of the individuals in most cases although being suicidal were passive in why none of the suicidal person was sitting passively in a chair we're gonna process last when officer shot and killed him and clearly under the current status of the law that was not reasonable in brown the officers kicked in the door to where brown was sitting saw brown with a knife and at that point officer blanchard shot and killed brown that again  was a situation where less lethal far less than lethal force options were not utilized and the officers went immediately to the to the deadly force those are clearly the cases that think there was fairly clear in this area i think it's been it was clear in two thousand and fifteen and it was again made perfectly clear in converses hendrix in march of two thousand and twenty significant factual differences between each case and really all of the cases cited by both the courts and counsel in this particular case the court should look to the sequence of events and the facts from beginning up until the use of deadly force and you will find that this is not like the other cases in the other holdings the main contention we have is that mr bieger who was called for a welfare check was as passive as can be and was not at the time armed when the encounter began as the court will know from the record he did not he was sitting in his own apartment without the knife on his presence and without any sort of aggression shown towards anyone or anything as we proceed through the sequence of events and i think this is is a clear difference from all of the other case he was passive control responsive non confrontational all the way through until the officers began to physically hurt him in which case he became as they say passively resistant and then they began to inflict pain and escalate from there our contention is that a reasonable jury could infer that the officers actions throughout the course of the the detention and search were in fact so on a reasonable that they were violet if even a very low standard  if you piece this out and we're not asking a court or a jury to go back with two thousand and twenty hindsight over everything's officers but rather to know that they pretty much and this is a bit hyperbo c they didn't do what they should have done right from you have got all thirty seconds left on till the fatal encounter happened he didn't resist and he was passive and the entire detention all the way through was so bad that we believe that a reasonable jury could certainly hold for the plaintiff and we're asking the court to remand allow these facts to be brought to the fore thank you and