he could have but didn't have and much less force and he didn't and so under the circumstances i believe what you have intoxicated she was at the very least belligerent and she was combative i don't think i need to remind the court of the profanities that were being tossed back and forth between the two sets of human women before any physical altercation took place it's under spew that he attempted to calm her down and she concedes that she did not calm down instructed to do so when he was trying to eliminate this whole you need to tell us how they can have them all at that point there is not just probable cause to arrest her for the for the assault on the officer there's also a problem to arrest her for the one forty eight what the officer  indicated that particular moment that belief isn't relevant to one another's probable cause for the arrest which takes place it's undisputed when he tries to seize her struggles and fights back all the witnesses say in the police officer we've got a one forty eight probably got half the charges to once she's in the process of being arrested there's a continual struggle she continues to talk of one of them at one point she turns around and all the witness and in the case you think get off me in trying to push him off of her and and then the officer at that point believes that she is trying to bite him you know what is there with regard fact on the question of whether he had her because she was trying to bite him or not well i think whether or not she was trying to bite him or not you know there's also the issue of qualified immunity comes into the handcuffs on and they were too tight and he didn't know it and she didn't know it and she got there in the interview that my blood pressure my speculation was cut off the handcuffs were too tight you might have a good argument that that you know qualified immunity but i'm only didn't know  technically it's not about what she says happened or what he said happened it's what people see what happened what if union reasonably believes that she was going to bite him what if what if what if what if we can what if we can establish by from the position that she's on the ground and the vision of what cap saw her and that she could not possibly have had her mouth anywhere near his arm then if he subjectively thinks she's going to bite him that's not reasonable that's not a reasonable belief and he has no justification position let me back up i when i when i first got here i said i believe the use of force was reasonable under the ins the fact this case but even if the court concluded it wasn't he still in the united in the doctrine of qualified immunity but you are you are right your honor that we don't even get to the issue of qualified immunity if the court determines a force was reasonable right but if you want to can if you want to can persist in your argument about qualified immunity you're going to have to cut your going to have to concede the unconstitutionality of his actions and if you're telling us that that we might be able to find that and that we probably shouldn't but that we might be in the final that sounds like conflict in the evidence and it probably ought to go back to a jury it's assuming arguing though that the court has a different take on this and i you i don't believe reasonable minds can differ we thank both counsel for their argument