depends on i guess or go in with the label that you're appending to that all pursuit cases are the same like you could have a pursuit case where you see something and there's no time to react except that except to pursue you could have a case like go sees a summary traffic offense we use ahead so clearly he's got time to think about it contacts somebody says he's not the person and then only then decides i'm going to drive one hundred ten miles an hour to go after somebody for i don't know an illegal lane change i mean is it really the case that sacrament of this was clearly deliberate so the question really becomes just how egregious is the behavior right now we're talking about conscience shocking if you're looking at all the circumstances years and you're asking yourselves essentially is that is that really outrageous or time to deliberate in good time to make a phone call to a radio call and say hey you want to stop this car they made it illegal a change i'd like to talk to them if you got hired to do that is that gets you off lewis of could have gone home made himself a sandwich thought about a little bit got here tainted that somebody would make that kind of a lane change go back out get his cruiser and drive two hundred miles an hour through an elementary temporal aspect time to deliberate the outrageousness sort of recklessness the kind of how strange it is and a minor nuisance a minor quality offense those things all come together and sort of italian you measure amount and then you can say guidance but nonetheless it is if you've got time to deliberate and what time you have to deliberate the less you have to show this is as a plaintive so what's what's wrong with next police in the next town or borough and then gets on the road to chase down that person what is state that there's obviously something liberation what is the test that's the analysis when you were fleeing person from the police officers but there are other scenarios that they contemplate in louis and this is one of those other scenarios i don't we're we're in lewis  case this is the standard they were talking about at least the way i read it there may be other pursue cases where the standard is over so i think that they contemplated that by the analysis they plead with the three  they were talking about a pursuit case and lewis why wouldn't talking about these other shandor if they were talking about the possibility of there was other standards applying and pursue cases can you can you help yourself with the  person that the police officer reson an act of chase over in our case that's not a lesson to complain and that's not what happened here as a lesson a complaint this person who committed this alleged summary advance and then by the way there was was being pursued that is a meter factual distinction that just might be relies upon his decision does that matter really does it matter whether the person knows they're being used because in that scenario this person is now fleeing from the police often not in our scenario  knowing something right i mean you couldn't you could imagine a circumstance where somebody is is driving recklessly down the road because they're because they're getting away from something bad they did they don't know that they're being followed but they're being followed right the subjective understanding that i being chased is not what makes the behavior of the driver necessarily culpable and something that would prompt a police officer to want to chase isn't you know you don't have to know oh i'd be chased in order to be driving badly correct well i would agree with that point just say so it doesn't i guess when you say that's a major point i have a hard time understanding why that matters at all the fact that she knew or didn't know she'd any question about her culpability later on if somebody said hey you were going under ten miles an hour but this is a police officer him a high speed pursuit i call a high speed chase you call high speed pursuit safe  lose no place if you've got a gross negligence and you've got to deliberate then in the pursuit case that's going to be done because if it had been that clear then your opponent would have a hard time saying not clearly so that was just looks at the law and says you know we surveyed a lot we think this is not clearly established has anything happened in the raw since green versus those that somebody could look at it say well it wasn't clearly established but it sure is purposes of this discussion but there was a constitutional violation that dead the behavior was conscious shocking that's not a question that's on appeal the only question on appeal is is that constitutional violation one that somebody at a given the speed of the rock in twenty fourteen will say well that's clear it's absolutely clear in the law but that but that was a constitutional violation so that's the only course in front of us and the pen circuit had moved at this kind of a case and said it's not clearly established right this happened since green versus post that would make the law clearly established where we say in this case your honor i'm not going to say that i can point to still have to point back to to this court's holding in the runners on that issue and that is that three different tiers of analysis occur here i guess when did that come out two thousand and four right pre pre greengrocers post i'm trying to i'm just trying to find out one thing i did there is a circuit court which has looked at this very kind of case and said there's no consensus it's not  find out when you can write the something after green vs post which would tell an officer well wasn't clearly established pre two thousand and six but since two thousand and six my goodness cases that have come out that tell you clearly established  another case that i can point specifically to other than the cases i relied upon from the third circuit which we believe establishes a miss within this circuit that this type of conduct not only shocks the consciousness but a reasonable police officer  i'm going to second call rather has happened if the tests were it was correct with respect to the state of the law two thousand and six it wasn't clearly established then did anything change three o six and rule the threshold for constitutional i believe becomes because it's easier to shock the conscious or somebody does something really stupid after they've had time to think about it but the longer they get to think about it remove the issue that deliberation doesn't take place or event long period of time like hears no but so all pursuits aren't created equal and that's a key thing isn't it you seem to want to say pursued means