states law of the conduct of united states border patrol agent in the course and scope of his employment for the united states of his conduct that occurred wholly on u s soil so they brought their case in the united states courts and in extraordinary claim of executive prerogative the government asserts that there can be no judicial review that is that the executive has the absolute unreviewable unilateral power to take wholly innocent civilian human life an extraordinary claim of executive profits of our view is and we believe the paper show that in fact the executive does not have that power that it claims there is no legal black hole on the border there is no longer us border area this conduct of that fundamental human right to life must be reviewed by the s courts this court has the tools to provide that review the united states supreme court decision in the believing sense that there is a practical functional test for the occasions on which the constitution has extraterritorial effect if ever there was a case that calls out for a practical functional extension of judicial review of executive u s conduct this is that case extraterritorial that's correct yes if there if extraterritoriality is not required here then clearly we have a bit of an cause of action it's an ordinary bivins case and we believe that there is no case that has ever occurred where  said required extra to rhetorical effect of the constitution were all of the conduct occurred on u s soil well now you you dropped your federal tort claims that case did you not that we did your honor and i assume that look that's right at the at the time of the adoption of the federal tort claims act that was the prevailing grewal the law the common law has moved away from that choice of law a principle but that was in fact the holding there is that the the foreign exceptions such as the foreign country exceptions and boumediene provides the governing rule for whether or not the constitution not the statute the federal tort claims act but the constitution is in the bivins claim directly  ty is required we say it's not required because all of the conduct occurred in the united states and there is no there is no decision that is ever said extraterritoriality is required when all of the conduct occurs in the united states but that's not our principle point we think that that's the right rule primarily we rely upon limited means and extort extraterritoriality affected to give under these circumstances with respect to the mitigating government says that it's limited to the a b s corpus clause that is the suspension clause that's not true any fair reading  makes clear two points number one the supreme court reviewed all of its prior extraterritoriality decisions including those on of the fourth and fifth amendments and distilled from that all of that prior case law a rule it says all of those cases have have applied in effect a practical and functional approach to extraterritoriality the supreme court goes through in detail and says that's how we decide if the territorial effect for all of the constitution and it uses that language it says the extraterritorial effect of the constitution not just of the suspension clause so the court sets out to distill so much prior case law a general rule of decision and then applies their rule to the suspension clause which was the specific provision of the constitution that was at issue in that case and so the notion that it's only the suspension clause that gets extra territorial effect or that in a subject to boumediene is simply not true so the language of the middle east and more importantly that the courts analysis how it went about getting to where it got it makes clear right there's no need to come to that conclusion this the court simply said that the government had been misreading jobson versus eyes and tried that lead to specific languages that isin tribe or never said jury sovereignty was or ever has been the only factor for extraterritoriality and the government is trying to resurrect that sort of formalised view and that's the language that limited gain and uses it says that the government and they're doing again here today is trying to resurrect a formalist approach that is citizenship or non citizen ship is the end all and be all and de jure a sovereignty is the end all and be all and this court specifically repeatedly in phatic lee rejected that since that's not the approach the approach is a practical and functional where yes obviously it's important that you know is there de facto sovereignty yes it's important is the person a u s citizen or not but those are simply one home on many factors and that's the difference in the supreme court and the mitigating was very very impunity and non court review ability of federal executive action is it wouldn't the federal executive action here still be reviewed by various levels of courts if the mexicans chose to indict and then prosecuted in extradition those courts would be reviewing at the era maybe with the extradition process the texas courts could review federal executive action in other words they could seek prosecution if there were a case federal courts could review the government's certification of scope of employment so it seems to me there are layers of court review that still exist it may not be federal court review but even as to that that's largely because a so so so why which is a decision from less than ten years ago so you would think that you could get up with a law enforcement proviso exception to the foreign country exception congress could go ahead and do that in reinvest federal courts with authority so my my larger point is it would seem to me three existing levels and maybe a fourth easily obtainable level in light of the change that so so effective would would give you court review these are not issues that have been frankly than i thought of or had been brief but your but well the brief has constantly said the issue here is unilateral federal executive authority that there will be no judicial review up and yet there are layers of judicial review that exist well let's take for example a state court process prosecution that again but put the decision in the hands of a state prosecutor the executive branch that extradition to mexico that has been  refused by the u s and executive again with the decision in the hands of the executive rather than you did judicial branch so the traditional method for obtaining review of the exactly this kind of conduct of this conduct had been standing you know thirty yards to the west or the east or the north rather than thirty yards to the south this would be an ordinary bivins case not that not that there are not important but they are they happen every day but why didn't you seek review of the government's decision to certify that he was acting within the scope of his employment i don't know the answer that i was not involved at that at the distant last question is you had referred earlier to our sudden decision and the government filed the twenty eight j to castro relating to the law enforcement proviso being sort of a trump of the various exceptions can you elaborate on that argument here is that part of your argument to us today that in fact even if a foreign country ok with respect to i like to address briefly whether or not the law was clearly established because that's another argument that the government raises before you get there no let me ask you with regard to the assuming justice kennedy's a practical functions that he set out some factors that would be taken into consideration as to whether there is a constitutional right or law would you apply those factors to this case certainly to look at the first factor is the citizenship and the status of the plaintiff obviously sergio was not a u s citizen but in terms of his status and the status that's important conceded that sergio was not any kind of an enemy of the united states had not been claimed to be also was not a combatant of any type this was not a war zone the u s was not exercising its military powers and of the importance of the right issue and take for example the plane a simple miti they were challenging their detention yes it's bad to be detained for six years as those plaintiffs were in our case it's the deprivation of a person's right the most fundamental right so those are the factors that play into the first dimity in fact of the status it's a fundamental human right the most fun i'm having human right and serious you know was not any kind of an enemy of the now is the time i guess in the opportunity for this court to do the exactly what he said was going to have to be done well i think it when you read the individual decisions of the seven they all reached that decision independently some of them relying more than others on the concession but i'll take that concession every day of the week it's the same government sitting right here sovereignty over guantanamo bay here every single aspect of the challenge conduct occurred on u s soil where there's days you're a as well as defact control certainly for purposes of applying their law and and disciplining regulating their their employees certainly would think if they fired into the united states they would be their agents would be subject to review in the courts that may be the case in the you would think and would certainly hope and expect that if they did that and caused injury to a u s citizen that a u s citizen could obtain redress of that if i don't believe so your honor this is a traditional judicial function certainly in the traditions of this country it is fundamental to the application of the both the fourth and the fifth amendments that's a fundamental core role of the judicia is to apply those amendments as a check on the asserted power of the executive we've been doing that for two hundred years and this this sort of unique circumstance that the conduct occurs in the u s soil but the injury happens to occur in mexico should not alst the courts of their traditional function and create a look tonight in the law especially when we're talking about that right fundamental right to human life you simply cannot be and you have the tools to reach a just result and a practical common sense result so the nature of the site here also argues in favor would assertion of u s judicial power cause friction with the other government here exactly the opposite is the case that is the government of mexico has filed in this case saying they affirmatively want the u s judiciary to review this case and they expect that to happen as part of just a good relations and us up what they say are u obligations under international law whether or not it's an obligation under u s law it's certainly i think our obligation as a society to say when we hire border patrol agents to to police  border we are going to extend to people just across the border the same right to judicial review that would have occurred if this teenager had been shot and killed on u s soil or if he had turned out to be  a u s citizen it seems little enough for these parents to ask for their son nations particularly those attacks it carried out by a federal officer of the united states in the course of his duties so you said you draw your line about the hazy borders what do you say in terms of what mexico says here about using drones strikes on friendly foreign nations such as isis in iraq i would say that that's too broad my own view is we it's too broad we live in a dangerous world there may be good reasons to deny access to us courts to  there may be good reasons to die just to review in us courts to them of damage in a drone strike but we should not let those concerns cloud our judgment and distort our law especially our laws reflected in our value of the rule of law and the respect for human life we don't have confidence in our own institutions our own judicial system that we are able to draw distinctions between military use of force and civilian use of force of ilion law enforcement agencies so we can draw all distinctions between afghanistan and twenty yards over the border in mexico that we can draw distinctions between the jihad us or other people injured in attacks on jobless and a fifteen year old mexican boy we have the tools to make these no other case it would be an apple more more or less your honor that is draw your decision in this case narrowly that we are applying the miti even in these particular circumstances and the next case when somebody else comes into court and claims are right you did issue a review in some far flung foreign nation in a military context you'll deal with that case when you get to it but i think everyone would know from the  application of been many individual facts in this case that you're not establishing some rule of law certainly as broad as what judge jones that and i have a question about qualified immunity assuming argument though that we grieve with you or that we perhaps we agree with you that it was not raised by the other side does that preclude us from considering it raised below there is a two part test for immunity they raised only part one and they try to try to say well we used the words qualified immunity so that drags in part two but the supreme court has said that there is a difference between arguments and guard less of how the court resolves the remaining issues presented by this case it should at a minimum affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the claims against those defendants with that out of the way i'd like to devote the remainder of my time to the honour's this case involves a terrible terrible tragedy but the question in this case is not whether the conduct alleged is unlawful  wrongful in the abstract the question is whether there is any basis for it did a damages action arising directly under the constitution against individual federal officers and the answer to that question is no for any of three independent reasons first this confused how is this your argument because your individual defendants i thought you just said are out perhaps i'm missing something obvious please help me well we're not out yet you're on of the judgment on appeal but we have we the united states did address the substantive constitutional issues but of course the united states does have a tremendous issue and the bivins issue decided by the panel as even as to age may say so are you speaking in some capacity now or are you representing the states and we are a party to this case so there are still claims pending against the united states and i'd be happy to address those at the court wants to hear about them but i think it's fair to say that the action in this case is now on the defense claim against agent mason with respect i'd like to turn to that issue when i'd appreciate hearing your response to the u s government's liability you filed the twenty eight j letter in the panel level on the castro decision yes so your position is that the alien looking at the eleventh claim your position is an alien tort statute claim to be valid has to have an express waiver and you do look at the the f t c a for that waiver  liability against the united states and moreover as the supreme court made clear in two thousand and thirteen ball case the alien toward statute itself does not create a cause of action against anyone still less could it create a cause of action against the united states specifically which would require some kind of clear and express language which the statute then you remember the cite reference you gave us to castro i do your honor and i believe in their brief into the panel your position in response to the a p s claim was pursuant to the westfall act this claim must proceed now under the f t c yet well there response then was citing our sudden decision that there's an interplay among the various exceptions and the law enforcement proviso would self kiki and it isn't trumped by the foreign country exception your honor that that particular language i think was directed to the extent to which the they were asserting a t s claim against the individual federal officers which would be clouded by the eleven their eleven claim was against the u s government as well as the individual right and then the brief went on in the section that that followed to say that there was no waiver under the a t s no waiver of immunity under the yes and that's the that's the reason why they can't proceed under the a t s i don't i don't think the westfall act is relevant the united states liability under that it has although i will say this the fact that congress created has if there's a foreign country exception that precludes liability under the f t c yet only under scores that the a t s which would would not provide a waiver here which would basically be an end run around the foreign country exception to the f t c and provide a cause of action where congress clearly without any express language  the first case in this court history to involve the extraterritorial application of the constitution and there is a very there's a disputed threshold question of constitutional law but whatever your honour's thinks whatever your honour's think about that threshold question it's not necessary to resolve in this case because at a minimum the law was not clearly established at the time of the events in the question that the constitution protected a foreign national president on foreign soil and i think that's that and i take it that the plaintiffs do not dispute that there was an clarity in the law as of that time as to the application of the constitution to such an individual said appear to want the court to apply some abstract concept of wrongfulness that is divorced from any claim under the constitution and that's  clearly established law if it wasn't presented in your i'm perhaps we can on the go well that claim versus i don't know i don't think that i don't think that you can draw i think actually more to this court's decision in martinez of where of discuss this the same argument was raised in martinez of where of that the defendants had not raised the application of the had not reason clearly established issue as distinct from the threshold question whether there was right with the court said was well you really can't separate out those two issues because of course if there isn't any constitutional right that perforce means that there is no clearly established constitutional rights of the question is kind of subsumed that that clearly established question at least is certainly more or less of soon in the threshold question of whether there's any right in the first place so i don't think you can hermetic least separate out those issues from one another certainly the fact that there is this tremendous dispute over that threshold question as the supreme court made clear in wilson reached a contrary conclusion as to whether this individual possessed any constitutional rights so there's a debate about that and the supreme court in alkyd said that you can only say that there's clearly established law if there isn't any reasonable debate about any threshold question and in a minimum there is a reasonable debate about that and again the question is not whether the conduct was wrongful in the abstract this is a specific to a constitutional standard of conduct and i understand that obviously the tragic facts of this case are terrible but let's just abstract from the facts of this case for a second and take the verdugo example we know from verdugo that you can have a search that occurs a there would there would be a problem and i think what that illustrates that in this context when you're talking about the application of constitutional rights the a pluggable standard of conduct does indeed vary depending on the citizenship and location of the individual in question so it's not at all unusual or fortuitous that that fact the location and citizenship of the individual might have considerable legal significance honor's weave if there are no questions on the clearly established problem of qualified immunity like turn the threshold question of whether there is any constitutional right in the first place in the first place the controlling precedent that applies to that question in this case plays that question in this case is the supreme court's decision in for do you go which involve the application of the fourth amendment the supreme court in verdugo considered in the supreme court's words in medan of rioting of objective factors in practical concerns in determining the application of the fourth amendment to individuals located abroad in that case it was actually property search abroad and at the same principle would apply to individuals the first and and what that supreme court indicated in verdugo is that that question turns on a variety of factors including the individual's connections to the united individual's citizenship and the into the individual's location and practical concerns with applying the fourth amendment abroad so this notion that the supreme court's reasoning verdugo is somehow inconsistent with the supreme court's generalized analysis and read yes and of prior cases interpret in the application of the constitution abroad is just not right because verdugo certainly did consider practical considerations it just it just relied on a different set of practical considerations than the plaintiffs think is relevant and this is what we do go ahead to say of a claim that the fourth minute applied abroad the result of accepting his claim would have significant and dilatoriness consequences for the united states in conducting activities beyond its boundaries application of the fourth amendment abroad could significantly disrupt the ability of the political branches to respond to foreign situations involving our national interests that kind of case by case determination about whether the the fourth amendment applies for the in fifth amendments because we do also discuss the fifth amendment was specifically rejected by the supreme court in her do though when it said that the very act of applying a case by case contextual analysis would result in what would result in practical difficulties and verdugo was a law enforcement case and nonetheless the supreme court did hermetically seal the law enforcement example from any other possible instance of applying the constitution abroad instead it quite correctly recognized that the implication of that holding would have significant consequences for not only the law enforcement context but also for when the united states military takes actions abroad in the national interest and i think the concept that those kind of consequences are something that the court should be mindful of particularly as it relates to the plaintiffs i guess threshold argument that this case doesn't raise any quote extraterritoriality concerns because the conduct occurred only within the united states and again i take it that the supreme court's precedents on application of the constitution abroad really there's no there's no analysis of whether the conduct of whether the conduct is quote extraterritorial it's an analysis of whether the individual in question possesses constitutional rights and it's very clear under the supreme court's precedent or do go among others that that question turns among other things on the citizenship and location of the individual and i think judge jones alluded to this concept to this consequence if it really were the case that the fact that all of the physical conduct at issue occurred in the united states that were sufficient to extend the the reaches of the fourth and fifth amendments everywhere in the world that would have significant consequences for and it happens every day for when united states officials within the united states take action to protect our national interest that may have effects abroad that would be tremendously disruptive and it cannot be right and i would just like to say just as a factual matter it's very hard for me to see how it's really true as a factual matter that the quote conduct occurred wholly within the united states because of course be an important element of a conic addition here and indeed the critical and necessary element giving rise to this entire controversy was the act of the bullet striking the deceiving in mexico and i don't think you can hermetically separate instrumentality that individual employs let's say a stack from you know from the physical the physical action that is that sets that instrumentality in motion we have any other case with similar set of circumstances where initial action started within the united states and cause right injury in another country i mean to seems to be a unique situation to the courts  which involved a claim by certain guantanamo detainees a challenge to policymaking that various united states officials conducted while in the united states and that policymaking conduct occurred in the united states and had effects argument at least that all of the challenge conduct a pretty broad because of all that's being challenged is the policy making then i guess they could make the same argument that that conduct occurs wholly in the united states and if the supreme court indicated in sosa that kind of conception would basically swallow the rule because and i'm this is nearly quote from sosa and the supreme court said virtually any claim of injury in a foreign country can be repackaged as a failure to train for you know failure supervise or a challenge to unconstitutional policymaking conduct that occurred within the united states indeed invertigo itself i suppose that if the plaintiffs if the players argument here were accepted the case could have been replayed it as a challenge to  the policy making that led to the search which was planned from a d a s office in california and clearly that's not what the supreme court had in mind in her do go another case in point your honor to is the morrison case from the supreme court in two thousand and ten which involved which it was a statutory case admitted y but has some similarities here because in the or in the that case involving extraterritorial application asserted extraterritorial application of section ten b the securities and exchange act and the same argument was made there because the fraudulent conduct in that case occurred in florida but the transaction occurred abroad and the plaintiff there made the same arguments that look conduct occurred in florida no big deal no issue of extraterritorial application and super said no no yes the conduct occurred in florida but the question of extraterritorial application depends on the focus of the statutory provision at issue so to here if you look at the focus of the underlying constitutional provisions they are focused on the individuals are you does your argument offering us any limiting principle so so let's assume it isn't a situation where it's u s government official defending national security but instead it's the opposite it's a u s government official in foreign territory doing this super narrow torture case what prove what argument are you offering to us that there's either statutory or constitutionally relief in u s court any or is it an all set well i don't in that particular instance that the and it looks to me when i look through the code there's a congress has given the executive branch settlement authority for d e a torts commit arising in other countries and when he won us the nine o four you familiar with actually i'm not i'm familiar with that stat this case at least a number of possible sources of review and just to underscore what i mean we did investigate this instance as a potential homicide prosecution and we concluded as a factual matter that a homicide prosecution was not warranted there in that instance your honor i mean i think the primary primary checks would be essentially as the supreme court indicated were do go diplomatic in nature and there are certain instances in which foreign countries approve right to the terrain believe it would it would your honor because in that instance there might be the possibility of as your as your honor indicated a state law tort action if it wasn't indeed and we didn't allude to that we didn't allude to that in this case i didn't want to suggest that that this wasn't within the scope of employment of course that is our our position but yes and in that instance there would be and but i think that the checks that are at work here in the situation you're on are positive are the same kind of occurred there because other individual other countries had control and something similar is happening here as you know and as your honor noted we did decline extradition in this case but and we have to face the diplomatic consequences for that this is what the supreme court in for do go had to say about those consequences quote if there are to be restrictions on searches and seizures which occur incident to such american action they must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding treaty or legislation there are checks at work here your hon our's the checks are imposed by the political branches in the first instance as you would accrue if we agree on the clearly established position that you have with range machine important from the justice department viewpoint that i do go through the normal chronology and stablished first if there's a constitutional right to be a pronouncement from this court you're actually i think that the better course would be not to reach that threshold question and instead simply to hold the conduct is clearly established in and of course the supreme court used to have this rigid order of battle for for qualified immunity has relaxed that in the interest of constitutional avoidance and that's what i would respectfully suggest or should do here and as i see my time is expired i haven't had time to address the judgment bar or the special factors argument the court has any questions about those i'd be happy to answer that but unless the court does we'll take the rest deriving their claim through business i would present to the court as a preliminary matter that only the fourth amendment would be the proper vehicle for bringing that pl and when we look to the fourth amendment it's undisputed that the deceased was an alien without presence in the united states or without substantial connection within the territorial united states when he died given those facts he certainly lacked protection of the fourth or the fifth amendments that could overcome my client's qualified immunity we think the verdugo case is very clear that an alien which mr anon is was in this case with no voluntary attachment to the united states has no extra territorial fourth amendment rights think that that there is at least one other avenue and that's twenty eight section twenty six seventy two the administrative just means claims where the attorney general has the right to consider payment for actions of occurring in foreign countries in terms of monetary damages or in terms of in essence what was raised by the a palance as mr m in terms of a several claim i believe that the only appropriate avenue would be twenty eight section twenty six seventy  so when we get back to the fourth amendment we see that aliens can only receive constant protection constitutional protections when they come within the territory of the united states it's really their presence within the united states that gives the judicia power to act if they are not in the united states then we are in essence of aiding invading the province of a foreign country they be a palance go out of their way to sign the boumediene case obey and exercises complete defacto jurisdiction over guantanamo bay in this case the united states has no jurisdiction whether it be forty yards or four thousand miles into m there's no that the dividing line there is the border and it's a real dividing line it's not a great dividing line it's not only divided by the international boundary and least it's also divided by a fence and it's divided by border protection on the united states who cannot cross into mexico crossing into mexico with a weapon with subject them to a minimum five year penalty under do you carry with the united states that we should just decide the case based upon clearly established law and if so is your briefing any hindrance to our doing so do you agree with the united states that we should decide the case from that basis well i think that this court should decide the case at least as it reads as it revolves around agent mesa to the brief that we provide to the getting back to the fourth amendment the plaintiffs and the appellant's in this case have conceded that mr hernandez was an alien to the united states and he never stepped foot into the united states and he was in the sovereign territory of the put republican mexico i think that speaks volumes because they are in themselves conceding that they were in the sovereign territory of the republic of mexico and was in no way connected to the united states because the fourth amendment is the proper vehicle to get to their claim because the death of mr hernandez was in essence a seizure is the fifth amendment claim available and you seem to think it might night why would it not be available where you are i don't i don't believe it is i mean to to get to the fifth amendment claim i think you have to use boumediene to extend if you will if you will the protections of the fifth amendment and i think the supreme court was very very clear in that case and they narrowed it to the suspension clocks i don't think that they left that open to interpretation i think they they decided that case very narrowly as it applies to the suspension clause under those specific facts but the process that justice kennedy used in making his decision does that give us some guidance as to as to how we should evaluate these cases the three that he didn't seem to restrict himself to only heinous cases in making his his evaluation the three factor test your honor yes well end given us the history of constitutional to extraterritorial he did not restrict themselves only behaviors corpus cases so you're saying that this is only restricted to the suspension clause but justice kennedy's evaluation did not restrict himself to only suspension clause cases well i think that certainly honor i would disagree that that the supreme court they  explicitly confined it only to the extraterritorial extraterritorial regions after applying the three part test the citizen status the nature of the sites and the practical after applying that test and certainly if you apply that test here mr non as was a citizen of mexico the death occurred in mexico and there i think that there are practical obstacles i think it would involve creating an invasion of the sovereign republic of mexico by u s law certainly the mexican government in their amatus brief has to  was i wasn't sure where you were going about it invasion of mexico never mind or i think that the plaintiffs in this case certainly went to court to abandon the president that was set in verdugo i think that they want to court to ignore clearly established president by extending the extending the application and i don't believe that the court should expand the extraterritorial reach of the united states using boumediene as its vehicle under the fourth or fifth amendment and i i believe that only the fourth amendment is the proper vehicle to question of the relationship between the clearly established and whether or not there is a constitutional right in the first instance it seems to be that's where there's a bit of interest we just  ortega admit that the court should decide the case based upon the issues raised in his brief he did not raise in his brief in any substantial way or in any way at all the whether or not the right was clearly established so therefore we have a concession by counsel for mr mason that the court should decide this question not on whether or not the right was clearly established but whether or not there is in fact that the co us i think that leaves that leaves you in the situation of the sat in this case based upon only the one branch of the qualified immunity inquiry which is whether or not there's the constitution extends in these facts in response to the arguments of the government in whatever capacity they are your client was the appellant from the district court it is not that they don't have to file a cross appeal in order to make figure it out but we're here in bank so you've got two minutes and i have to further convince us of it ok let me let me convince you in the time that i have left with respect to clearly establish law pear another supreme court cases makes absolutely clear that the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect officers who quote reasonably believe that their conduct complied with the law without the original panel decision quite correctly pointed out that no agent under any circumstances would have somehow got it in his head that it was ok to shoot an unarmed unthreatening teenager or anyone else under any circumstances and other words for it to matter whether or not on that point though it still remains the question of whether it's established law irrespective of whether it serves that particular purpose are you saying quite properly invoked it says when it is obviously wrong then you do not need an officer does not need a particular case on those particular facts and as applied here what that meant was no reasonable agent would think ok i can't use excessive force excessive fatal force against a u s citizen on u s soil but maybe that doesn't apply to me when i'm shooting a teenager just across the border this comes down to a matter at the detainee and twenty five witnesses were interviewed him things so i'm just suggesting a need but the problem of that clearly established law is that anybody can get release is not in the record and is not correct i've seen the three videotapes of this incident and i have been debriefed by the criminal justice department lawyers who did that investigation who told me with agent's cond that every agent and every law enforcement agency with a gun in this holster knows you cannot shoot unarmed and threatening persons sparseness who are not threatening you your life or serious bodily injury or to someone else everyone knows that and that does not change based upon the color the nativity or the location of the person this is a right to human life and