circumstances that we're dealing with in this case this trial and this appeal or kurdi in less time than it takes to walk from the the doors to this courtroom to the podium they occurred in four point five seconds according to point of the expert totally elapsed time the first one point eight seconds of that occurred when the only one moving moment in a transaction for at least the sale of a substantial amount of heroin he knew that excuse me of cocaine he knew that he had a person who had been on the run for eight years he knew as all or and law enforcement officer to snow that as he approached that individual he should be assumed to be armed dangerous he was making a felony arrest under very difficult circumstances you know usually police call for backup when they're dealing with a suspect they know ahead of time to be  appropriate thing for him to do if you really if you truly believe those guys are the vangelis is to stand back and call for backups and be in a situation where his own warming power where his overwhelming firepower and car with his gun go on he could have laid back he quit as i'm not going to do this thing by myself because i'm not a cowboy i am a professional why isn't the very judgment told that he was reasonably mistaken under the facts if he was reasonably mistaken under the facts about his right to use deadly force which is the saucer second part of the saucer you standards that he's entitled to a qualified immunity we were not we would not have put in evidence from that context they were not told that he's entitled to be i that well no because the because in the subsequent ninth circuit authority that we've cited to the court recently contains the language so that you can be mistaken as to the facts that you ha rise to whether or not your conduct is legal you know all due respect the jury wasn't told that he we did not argue or we were not in a position to argue that at the moment he made the decision to shoot the gun not the moment the shot was actually discharged that he was reasonably or an officer in his position would have been reasonably mistaken about the fact may have been clever enough to figure out a way yes we did we offered instruction which was refused in that instruction in part the law enforcement officer is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for claims for money damages the defense of qualified immunity is intended to protect a law enforcement officer from liability unless they are plainly incompetent or knowingly violate the law law enforcement officer is protected by qualified immunity at a recent poll officer could have believed his conduct was justified in this case you must decide whether a reasonable officer would have believed that their life was in danger at the time of the incident  was the other instruction your honor does not tell the jury that the that the defense is available to all of those officers who are not knowingly now not whether it was an accident term mistake so this jury if we can look in jurors minds was thinking about the concept of self defense which is very similar to the concept of qualified immunity and there is nowhere in these instruct to reasonable mistake of fact the fact is that deputy bertoli didn't have the benefit of knowing what was going to happen in that millisecond underlying facts and this this court subsequent authority which we've cited to the court to that effect so the language of star ca is broader than just recent on the state of law that mistake of law can tell the jury is the elements of the qualified immunity and it doesn't tell the jury that if the officer was reasonably mistaken under the facts he's entitled to a project which would  presented with here on the liability issue is it happened fast therefore we went and that's that's really all they have to say is that it happened within four seconds and therefore they went i don't think that's  law i don't think an officer has the right to do anything that comes into his head just because it happens within four seconds you're being asked here to reverse a jury verdict in which the jury had overwhelming not going to go any further out than i need to go evidence when the court said i'm denying the motion because there are disputed issues of fact about liability here on the issue of the attorney suite and addressing the issue of the multiplier it's my understanding of dade and other cases that you must make a necessary showing that the lo star awarded was not a reasonable fee before you were before there is an adjustment for a multiplier no one has ever suggested in this case other th i don't believe there's an implicit finding your honor they asked for they asked for eleven thousand dollars in fees more than they recovered under the court's order they never asked him frankly in all due respect the desirability of the case is one of the factors you take into account on your hands like this one of the twelve factors so there's no showing here there's no finding here there's no comment here by the plaintiff that it was not a reasonable fee but yet the multipliers awarded and there is no showing in the record that mr over feller was not able to obtain other counsel in guam we had we have a declaration there's another ninth circuit cas proceedings have there been any circumstance in which he tried to obtain counsel it should have been in the record in it is not in this record and in all due respect we do not believe that the multiplier is justified under the circumstances and frankly it's our feeling now as to the six hundred thirty eight thousand dollar underlying lodestar award the what's happening here is through a well staffed overstaffed effort here of nine press eighteen billers on this case nine lawyers three paralegals that what's happening here is totally is being asked to pay for the learning curve and we've requested that two hundred twenty one thousand dollars and some odd dollars reduced from the lone star thank you thank you very much