your honor the this case is replete with proof failures and questions of fact as to what occurred in the in the inciden t starting right at the core of the issue mr ellis came in and claimed that he was shot at by jesse but there was only one shot and the shot was in my client abdomen and that and there was no corroborating evidence of a shell or widing and all the eyewitnesses said he wasn't shot at us or we focus on the disputed facts and i agree with you there are disputed facts i want to go with you go through with you couple of facts and tell me whether these were under speed ok please do right officer alice received a dispatch call that shots had been fired in the park and was responding to that true or untrue absolutely wasn't told shot in the air shot to the ground right that is what the record shows we don't have the actual he also wasn't told that your client had any emotional disturbance or was suicidal that was not told to him in the call either he was well that nobody would he asked your client were not asked to direct your client to drop the gun disputed or undisputed there's a lot of question about what he said or what he didn't say iran or aspects of what he said but in the end i thought i would but i would go along with the the positioning of the gun but the core fact that's undisputed i believe is that i had the gun in his hand when he turned to the officer i client was seated on the side with the gun in this position as we understand it from the eyewitnesses and then he stood well like this and turned like this so that point in time he would have seen the cop about that time the cop shot the jungle gym and at that point in time he would have been removing the gun like this and the strap would have been here you're getting other facts but there's no dispute that when he turned to the officer he had the gun in his hand absolutely erikson what case what  anywhere in the united states federal case has a court found no qualified immunity we're not for sooner has those undisputed facts before him or her and to use deadly force which he says would say that that's not enough for you to invoke deadly force the answer is iran or that i do not i have not got a case exactly on that point and that is doesn't that unfortunately from your perspective create a real problem because you have to be able to show that there is a clearly there is a case that he clearly establishes the proposition that you're arguing for and you're you've just said that there isn't and under the case for example of of sheehan the supreme court's decision in two thousand and fifteen  pinion by justice alito and officer cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the rights contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable officer in issues would have understood that he was violating yes but in sheehan they had a mental patient with a knife that was standing there threatening people my client did nothing but follow the police officers orders who told him to stand up and drop a gun and that's what he was in the process of doing when he got shot that was the officer who was in the process of dropping the gun returns with the officer nobody's going to drop the gun or shoot the answer is that it wasn't pointed at him it was pointed at my at my high and according to the eyewitnesses it was pointed at that my car i had appointed himself as to wait until the until the guns pointed at him so that he can be killed before you can protect yourself no your honor i think he would have done much better to avoid this whole situation and use a megaphone back at the police car it's you know that in the coolness of time that's all well and good but the standard that we have to look at is that there has to be a case on point and you've already told my colleague judge bianco point and how does that how do you how do you survive that after seventeen of your brief you're in violation the rules of the school you cut and pasted had notes from from other from some other cases for various principles with regard to the use of excessive force it detracts extraordinarily from your argument and reflects upon you individually as a as an attorney please don't ever do it again because i've instructed the clerk that even if there is a partial noncompliance with the rules of court your brief will be rejected pages twelve through seventeen the argument unless there's an imminent threat of harm to the officer to rd parties officer ellis cannot use deadly force the constitutional standard now i understand that that's all background information but when you cut in pieces even to the point force when he was confronted with a more bile active shooter in a public park and when he denham far as the location of the active shooter the active shooter does not respond to that officers commands to drop the firearm that the active shooter was holding i have found no case on point saying that this is a law and i believe my adversary has just admitted that at that point officer ellis is entitled to qualified immunity and as your honor student observed there is no clearly law a centrally saying that an active shooter gets to get the st shot off now we've been discussing supreme court case law and i will say it's not just the she hanged case why defendant officer ellis is entitle to qualified immunity in fact since two thousand and fourteen supreme court has heard five deadly force cases in every one that you've heard they granted qualified immunity to the defendant police officer so i submit your honors they're sending us a clear message which these cases are not to be taken lightly and that officers are to be given why discretion when dealing with these split nd decisions which this was for example if we look at the record the recording dr dr analysis of the relevant portion  enters the park to the shots being the exchange of gunfire it's roughly six seconds long a firearm can be fired within roughly th of a nd that's the times the minuscule literally split nd decisions this it appears that the that the bullet went into his abdomen right so he was shooting at himself yes your honor it is a tragedy which which goes to a different point than what the law requires in this case but deference as to what he might do but this is in terms of the real world this is also on the other side of a tragic situation of somebody who was mentally ill obviously was capable of shooting up people in that public park but with respect to this incident incident the bullet goes into his own abdomen which suggests that he was not aimed at the officer correct your honor and i will say you've got almost two questions one is the issue of officer else's tactics and is he entitled to qualified immunity for that in the other issue was his perception of where the firearm was pointing at the time that he shot was that a reasonable mistaken perception so let me address the tactics issue st the best case which your honor cited is the she hand case that's a two thousand and fifteen supreme court case that's case where you but but in that case as we know it was an emotionally disturbed person that the police had essentially used the tactic of fishbowl in the individual they were contained in their apartment and the police officers were outside of the apartments door and they testified that they could hear sirens on the way and yet they really entered the apartment the emotionally disturbed person charged at them with a knife and they deployed deadly force on them now here rose was an ambulatory active shooter he had already discharged the sawed off shotgun in a public park so there is a much more eminent threat that officer ellis was being dispatched to nd of all there's nothing in the records to your honor observed that officer ellis needed directions of the shots moreover an officer ellis although he was generally aware that backup was on the way he didn't know how long it was going to pursue eisley take and more importantly he didn't know the direction backup would be arriving from which is very very important tactically even with plaintiff's expert say when you're dealing with these situations and sense that it's a triangular approach so and if we look at the facts in the record upon arriving at the park officer ellis could not see the active shooter i believe he did a very quick investigation spoke to a couple witnesses i believe it's the testimony of mrs marx she says that she can see just the angles of the active shooter sitting under the tubular side of the of the sliding board in the park so at that point he's got to make a positive identification that this is indeed the active shooter that they had fired the shots so he does enter the park now players expert gives lots of testimony that he should have went for cover and concealment and waited to respond but he had to enter the park in order to make the identification of the active shooter and it's only with his tactics and one of the things they're tactically trained on is the moving and shooting approach and the premise of that is that a moving target is harder to hit than a stationary one which is exactly what officer ellis big he did move towards the subject and fired two rounds which i believe are not in dispute one hits the sliding board post and bounces off and ricochets doesn't strike anyone and the other one does get discharged into the left hand of the active shooter now moving to the nd portion of your question which is was it reasonable case which says that you cannot make a question the fact over the direction of the muzzle of a firearm at the split nd if the officer uses deadly force and the reason for this makes it's relatively simple it's even plaintiff's own firearms expert testified that if the shotgun was pointing the shock and was pointing at himself he could have spun it around in under a nd and killed the police officer again it takes about twenty one dollars hundred's of a nd to fire a firearm and kill someone moreover under the supreme court case law we start with graham and we go specifically to saucer vs cats and it talks about if you police officer mistakenly reasonably perceives facts wrong in the qualified immunity analysis is done through those mistaken perceptions of fact and if we look at the record three other witnesses made the same mistake officer ellis did which isn't that they confuse the end of the shot going wrong again look at this  clearly the muscles being cut off and the the butt stocks been removed so it literally looks like a stick so i will say two of those other two of the three witnesses that mistakenly confuse the muzzle from what remained of the pistol grip of the firearm had firearm experience one was of combat vietnam veteran and the other one was an active or it had been a competitive shooter and had extensive firearm training and experience and hunting and things of that nature both of those two individuals also confused what was the muzzle and in the pistol grip of the shotgun so for those reasons i would submit that officer ellis is entitled to qualified immunity for the actions that he took on at a similar park on  again your honor there is no proof in the record whatsoever that at this time he was i d n active shooter or that he was engaged in a this perception his testimony is clear and exclude explicit that he was shot at and that was just and that is just a blatant lie and that with that i thank you your honor thank you thank you both your arguments the court will reserve decision