specific provisions in the fifty six one statements and others that contradicted the conclusions the court wanted to reach why do you think there wasn't a probable cause to review well i think specifically w probable cause what you needed to do when you have two people one of whom is a victim by the way the court was wrong with respect to nine one one the first nine one one call came from somebody who said that the camera man is is beating the guy on the floor so when you have that information and you have a witness and you have two people contesting it and one is clearly injured there's an obligation to at least inquire from the people around as opposed to simply making the flippant judgment i'm no arrest the man on the floor because i can't speak to him and not arrest the person who's standing up there so the question is what do you do with that i was injured to go shapiro had a bloody care was broken too that's correct but the bloody nose may well have been from what the witnesses had indicated from super own self for swinging the camera around and hitting in the face but the core question your out of court is true throughout this is the court never looked at the evidence is a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and came to conclusions that were just grossly inappropriate factor with let me give you two or three quick examples the first one is throughout the decision page one thousand and twenty the court says the following three or four different times that is no record evidence that the officers who handcuffed plaintive had reason to know that their accommodation led to an unreasonable exacerbat demonstrates that they knew that he was injured then the question comes up is that a reasonable accommodation when you have four factors when you have someone who is not protesting who's not in any way a threat or  question and at least handcuffing at least about handcuffing where they stand and stood but it is complain about if you're on the supreme court has made it clear that you don't have to find a case directly on point that's about what you do is you take the general principle the general principle is that if you know someone is hurt you don't have a risk of flight or any danger to anybody around all you have to make an accommodation what the accommodation your quiet push for her deposition if you read her deposition as opposed to the court's description of her deposition what she has said is indeed in self defense in self defense she's holding this up never hit never hit shapiro again you're on it with all due respect the decision has thrown out the decision threw out the decision she violates the fundamental principles let me give you another that's the testimony on the record two offices lifted him up one at a different office the third one muniz says and i was holding his arm when they cuffed him now if you draw inferences in favor as you have to do of course the jury can conclude contrary to what the court said that he was pulled up by his injured arm that's an inference it's a logical inference that could be drawn which of course should have drawn under the circumstances barred if a civilian makes false reports to the police knowingly false reports as we claim that shapiro did this course of action and you know and also with respect you think he said that i was attacked he said that shin hit him he continued to say that when the evidence is all from the strap wrap and then he walks two blocks away to what childress street blocks away and he's changed bunch of pira just sort of a personal note walking out of the court you know they're photographers here and i've actually walked into court one time bleeding from the photographers there but walking two blocks away you expect the photographer to trail you to make all these derogatory claims calling you names all the rest reasonably and using two sets of handcuffs on him best even giving mr shannon every benefit of the doubt the evidence at best shows that the police could have also arrested shapiro it does not show that they did shand had not been of the aggressor and that was just ignored and when the heat went down to the station and wrote up the report and process this that was  entire incident she only saw part of the incident as she saw it more than anybody else who talked to abramowitz nothing that mrs krebs said contradicted the report of the photographer's assertion that mr sha came out of the courthouse and tried to kick them there's no evidence contradicting that no evidence was ever presented to the police that mr shantytown do that and in fact he admitted that he did that they had probable cause to arrest him at least related to those charges related to the attack outside the courthouse also miss crabb said to the officer that she wasn't sure if the photographer had committed a crime but that she thought he had provoked mr shand so there's just no reason to believe that any information miss cops provided gave the police reason to believe that shapiro was lying furthermore there's a there are a lot of cases saying that the police are not required to immediately resolve fact disputes or to figure out who is lying when there's different stories maybe they could have arrested both of them but they had for sure a probable cause to arrest mr shand but they continued with the process they didn't win to w if there's no evidence that the police at the specially at the time they were making the decision about who to charge that they had access to the nine one one call i'm not sure exactly how long those things take to get processed at some point obviously they showed up to post them on one call complaint does not contain a federal false arrest claim so this is just about the prosecution that police did not sign the criminal complaint they sent the victim statements to the district attorney the district attorney is not a name to defendant here so it's a district attorney's decision based on the complainants big state which prosecution with regard to a prosecutor has to be with the prosecutor's aware that the information is faults that he receives from our case all receipts from prosecutors faults and then decides to disregard it and continue the prosecution notwithstanding clear information to the contrary right and no one here had clear information to the contrary to dispute the photographer's assertions about mr simms behavior and in fact mr stan admits most of it frankly i mean he admits that crimes whether they police could also have charged mr shapiro is frankly irrelevant to that germination trying to the excessive force claim i would just like to dispute the assertion that there's some evidence showing that the police yanked mr shand up by his injured arm in fact on page seven twenty four of the appendix mr stone testified that he was lifted from below his armpits he was not he did not say that they just jerked him up by his injured arm in any event it is not it is not it is objectively reasonable to use two sets of cuffs on a person who says that they have an injury shoulder the police are not doctors they didn't know for sure how hurt he was people say there her all the time they talked to their supervisor that said he says his on hunts the supervisor said use two sets of cops that's what they did he was cuffed only briefly and that is not a constitutional violation and i believe says that it would have caused additional pain and maybe did cause additional pain but that they again they're not doctors they didn't know how hurt he was he said he was hurt they tried to accommodate him he was cuffed only briefly that caused and interfered with the professional judgment of the police officers making their best there's no evidence that mr shapiro were mr burnett at any time in for change or encourage the police to arrest mr shand they made their complaint they gave their want your honor even if you assume the statements were false of which there was no evidence in contradiction to those statements given plaintiff asserts that their state the statements were false but there's nothing pointed to in the record there was a fight contradicted by the plain do it right we only give them we only give the plaintiff on a motion by summary judgment by defendant's the presumption of every possible inference from their point from their a as several photographs that show what was occurring that day there's the testimony your enemy yes there's the other issue that one of the elements requires malice to be shown and again this is not an i'm sorry i have and as i said you don't have to have on the street was made it clear that you cannot you don't have to find a case directly on point it's a principle also with respect if you look at page thirty nine of our brief there are cases that we cite that specifically contradict the assertion that was made and that is that you of for purposes of summary judgment and in general if you have a knowingly false statement be made that you and that is what you had here is he went to the precinct shapiro went to the precinct afterwards he then went down to his district attorney's office afterwards and repeated the same laws now what has happened here in court really though that shapiro should have been arrested to know look at the photographs with kids there's a fight between the two of them you know your client's kicking him or one boy is he blows being exchanged i mean how do you just you know that you're there was probable cause for your client to be arrested is this really shapiro sure but it was the two but let's start with the simple proposition yes he should have been arrested but the answer is that doesn't deal with the question as to what do you do what are the police supposed to when they arrive on the scene one man is deeply injured a witness comes up and says you arrested the woman want to ask the witness don't you have an obligation a simple obligation to ask a disinterested witness when you don't know what happened as to what they should do i say that's a prerequisite