correct your honor he had he had has gone drawn to danny he hosted has gone and had his taser that he took mr golfing out of the vehicle and brought him to the back of the vehicle and he did a pat down search to ensure that there were no weapons  and now keep in mind it off the ashcraft is from about four feet behind and off the high end and mr goff and she's about four feet behind at about a forty five degree angle behind hypothetical i carry with you that he did assume here that happened let's as a hypothetical say occurred prior to that if that was the case would you agree that the facts leading up to that conclude that the that the officer's conduct subjectively reasonable i mean she had reports of him having a firearm reports from i think numerous witnesses saying he he was acting he was going to take people along those lines would you agree that if the shooting happened earlier before the pat down that it was objective and reasonable you know you and i would not agree with that because the officer off the ashcraft had her eyes trained on mr goff in had a weapon on his person well ya know if he if he but here's a situation though mr golf and it was just a split second that from the time when mr boffin tried to run it was just split second from the top that he tried to  that's a gun or just a magazine clip that he had in his pocket and so it seems to me that you know the usual issue is are there other cases that address whether conduct following a pat down  down for weapons and that he was patted down for weapons then the off to begin the process of income but that's the issue that i'd like to hear more about i mean is it true that the officer knew because it turns out this pat wasn't very good because it revealed other items on your client's person afterwards right ya know what it is opposition i want to offer this patting down a person they're patting down just to make sure they don't have a weapon now the pat down there for the purpose of this covering whether or not there is a weapon on the individual the pat down is not to try to get any other objects out of the person's pocket it's just to ensure that there is no weapon on that individual and so that's the whole purpose behind a pat down and then once the person i handcuffed then of course the officer will go into the pocket just to retrieve any of the items that may be in their purse and so that's that's the whole purpose than a pat down it is just to make sure that the person doesn't have a weapon on them for it to assure the officer safety and we this guy was firing a weapon at the direction he had already shot at some people and also the off to testify that the that mr wayland had fired a gun the weapon toward the officers direction and missed away a clearly when you have a situation where the officer in the case and when you look at these facts dolphin have been patted down he's being led to the back of the car off the ashcraft is focused on his hands she know that he bone spot and travel from left to right and so she was definitely the angle of the shot she was it was not a direct shot from directly behind the back and so again when you look at all  most favorable to the opposing party and when you look at the back of this case mr gough and have been patted down no weapon was seen on him and the off the knew that he didn't have a weapon on him as forces hands he had been patted down and based on those facts alone yana we believe that the officers action were objective leon reed was going to say remaining time when you know the supreme court also tells us that qualified immunity existed in some respects to address the concern of split second decisions and tense situation and how does that consideration play into something which admittedly was bang bang literally in terms of the it's and its conduct in the response  so in that in light of the fact that the that the pat down occurred he with an arm because that's the purpose of the pat down so therefore this split second to whatever doesn't apply in this situation because here you have a adam herself and bystanders while based on all of the facts in the circumstances that she was faced with on that day she knew that often had an active arrest warrant for aggravated robbery it had been reported to earlier that night that she had stolen some guns from her he had stolen some guns from his uncle's house mr radek mr radek and made the comment to her better be ready to fight when you find him he's out of control  mr moore then reported to her that he had brandished those guns to him showed him he had a gun in each pocket and forced him to take him to a car wash he said he threatened them that he smelled about the hall he thought he i mean sure that's what the purpose of a pat down is to feel for weapons i think it's important to note that hines was the one that did the pat down not ashcraft ashcraft is the one that saw something bumping in his right front pocket and earlier in the night it had been reported to her that he had a gun in but it wasn't communicated to her oh he doesn't have a gun on him i mean if you happened  one hand is taken behind his back for handcuffs that hand is not contained of where the other hand is still on the back of the car and then the defendant bolts she didn't  see the facts i don't recall there being anything indicate that there was an indication that the suspect moved to grab something from a pocket or pull something from some other place but that simply they ran or ran and so the it seems to be at least a matter of fact will dispute that may make summary judgment premature for the determination of qualified immunity  facts are undisputed except for the pat down and we took that in the light most favorable to the plaintiff that the pat down did occur i think it was objective really reasonable for officer ashcraft to believe that he had a weapon in that front pocket when she saw something bumping in the front pocket and their head bit it had been reported that he had a gun in each pocket and when he rang and he raised his shoulder as if reaching for a weapon she thought i'm dead that was her words i thought i was dead and so she like after they got them out after they got her at the time of the shoot i don't recall being in the record i don't recall either i would assume it probably was shot and i don't  the shoulders of reaching for a weapon he's running towards bystanders it was objective lou reasonable for officer ashcroft to believe he posed a threat to her and the bystanders numerous courts have held in similar situation that deadly force case or this court held that an officer is not constitutionally required to wait until least at eyes upon the weapon before employing deadly force to protect himself against a fleeing suspect who turns and moves as though to draw a weapon i mean that's what we have here we officer an officer in her position given these facts in these circumstances whether it was abducted unreasonable for that officer to believe that he was armed and posed a threat  i and the facts are all undisputed and so i believe given the undisputed facts the question of law is was it a direct and reasonable for her to believe that he posed a threat and i believe the answer is yes based on case law out of the circuit and  correct that kind of that kind of segues me into my next argument there's there's no case that is directly on point from the supreme court or from the eighth circuit that would place just a question beyond debate the reason the officer would know that  actions in this case would violate clearly established law best officer ashcroft is entitled to qualified immunity i think it's really important to point out qualified immunity and some language from the annex versus luna the supreme court case that says specificity is especially important in the fourth amendment context because it's difficult for an officer determine how the relevant legal doctrine more applied to the factual sort of situation that the well i think it was still objective lee reasonable for an officer in her position she didn't conduct a pat down she saw something bumping in that pocket she knew he had guns in each pocket earlier that night i think it was reasonable for her to believe that he was armed despite the pat down we know that the pat down obviously wasn't that great because things were found in his pocket including the clip and i think a reasonable officer probably could think and her sole reason for shooting mr boffin was the fact that she said she saw his shoulder go up and she thought he was about to shoot and i asked her do in a deposition if they will you would agree with me that when people are in the act of running you their shoulder well you know and she say well yeah i mean that that happens and so again we believe ya know that the pat down search in this case and all office of the train you do a pat down for the perp because of trying to determine whether or and then she would they gave us additional reason although he was running toward a crowd she never stated that mr golf and asked why did you shoot me she said because you're a man and you can't do that thank you i must go to thank you also ms adams we appreciate the argument you provided to the court this morning it's helpful in resolving the matters that are before us and thank you also for the briefing will take place i'm going to go with out there on that you may be excuse