aspect of the chase began the deceit and had used his car as a deadly weapon against the officer when the officer had his the his torso inside the car through the driver's window trying to trying to stop trying to turn off the key and disable the car and the deceit and drove the car off with the officer half in the car  which posed a huge danger to the officers life and he luckily escaped without any serious injury by falling out of the car does that have a influence on the on the on the officer is reasonable perception at the moment when he got out of his car and was standing like three feet in front of the deceit and scar whether it was moving at that moment or not that happened and then there the pursuit followed and i know that for mr harkness is going to describe the miles per hour of the pursuit as a slow pursue all of that builds to the understanding that randy prince has at the moment exited the hall so he understands that there's been quite younger stands that there's been an attempt to endure him he understands that mr bevan and does not want to return to jail he understands all these so when you have the vehicle th that meeting does not go this is more akin to the case where the vehicle backing out of the driveway and yes i understand that the person stole a police car cruiser out of the driveway was backing away when the officer fired but even then you don't have immediate threat when the vehicle is leaving you behind and here we had a compliance because there were always so many places that mrs evans car could go and officer prime reason we perceive that that vehicle was going to come  t and there was there's no case law that says that you can't defend yourself and there's plenty of law that describes the fact that you don't need to wait for the right to actually materialize before you engage in split nd decision making those  reasonably think that that's ok because earlier the man had engaged in life threatening and i thought at any point really where there's going to be another confrontation it is not true i think time during the  we not just in just a nd it's not just that his proximity to the vehicle i mean if he were if he were standing alongside the alongside the driver to the to the left of the vehicle that would be a totally different thing because the vehicle wouldn't represent a threat that in that tiny fraction of a nd is life could be gone he was he was standing four feet in front of the  vehicle after the driver had used the vehicle in an effort or in reckless disregard of his safety by gunning it ahead while he was half in the vehicle and then he found himself at the conclusion of this of this chase right in front of the vehicle where in a split nd in a th of a nd by putting his foot down the driver could could kill  him i mean i think that that's part of the answer you should give to the question the judge lynch asked you that that's an entirely different thing from just saying because that st thing happened at any moment the officer would have been the jury could find that certain frenchy lied about everything that has been at the time of the shooting correct there are people who contradict him he claims that he had an injury and there's medical evidence that at least a marathoner statement a material fact that establishes that the d w i event occurred that all of those things that you just described pass and you go back to the gulf point you know what we're talking about the vehicles you know it's the there's a barrier that the vehicle is up against to his right the cars behind them and seven is cars in front of them he has a limited square space to stand him which is about four feet thirty nine inches i think of that that was in the record d we can call for fuel for the purposes of discussion i think it's made of maf here's the problem when he put himself in the position and he perceived that threat that vehicle that that weapon used in able to take the act of any sort of and there's no there is no case for  right being addressed in this clase was clearly established by case law and if you when you read the briefs politically the opening brief and if you compare it to to the district court's decision on summary judgment  either that argument isn't what they made before the district court and it wasn't in their opening brief that it was made to you they argued that the law wasn't clearly established that a police officer could not shoot a vehicle that wasn't moving and it was it was incredibly slippery slope because i think it's just less said and if you did just that means that any time that there is a prior encounter between a police officer and a say that any situation in which a officer has a confrontation with a police officer and in this particular case according to mr french and there's no other witness to says it does happen he tried to reach in the car take the keys out and then mr bevan and tr move the move the vehicle when there's an intervening period of time in which that meet motor vehicle then is stopped at that point in time that juncture the eagle officer now don't bridle use deadly force to stop the well let me let me give you a hypothetical which i think better but is closer to what we're talking about than some of the ones that have been discussed supposing that the officer supposing that the officer according to his testimony which is uncontradicted and as here the officer has since died so he doesn't testify in the case but he gave it a deposition supposing that he his testimony is police officer you're under arrest whereupon the theban in pulled out a gun began to run and turning over his shoulder fired a number of shots at the officer in an effort to escape and they had  chase on foot and they chased each other for a distance and finally the fleeing person turned into an alley that turned out to be a blind alley and the officer turned the corner and found himself face to face with the person who had been firing at him but at the moment that at the moment the he wasn't firing at that moment he wasn't firing that is a closer a closer representation it's not a matter of whether just because there was something that happened in the past that put the officers life at risk it was that that a few moments before before the chase the person was shooting at him and he's not actually shooting at him at the moment when the officer shoots him but he has the gun in his hand and if a quarter of a nd passes the officer may well be dead now i think the that is a clue is closer to the facts of this case and the ones that you're talking about when you say just because something happened in the past between them well i mean i don't agree with that respectfully just that that is a accurate i certainly was not on exactly all fours but it's a lot closer than what you were talking about under any circumstance because what you're talking about is an individual who actually did this kate in your hypothetical a man who took aim at somebody and started to fire them with a fire at them with a gun in this case that you have as an individual trying to slip that that's what that was a that was why he fired at him is only purpose he didn't have a malicious intent to kill the defense he just he just and more important anything else was getting away and he was prepared to shoot at the officer if that would enable them to get away just the way this person was prepared to gun his car with the officers body half in it if that's what he needed to do to escape from being arrested st off we we have the testimony of mr french who is the only one who says that that's the incident necessarily happened as just listen we can this completely has it as as in my hypothetical house has dominated your hypothetical depending upon what the end of it was that officer saw with if the individual had gone standing at his side and the officer said drop your weapon drop your weapon drop your weapon and he didn't drop his weapon he might be under those circumstances probably would be able to use deadly force how long is it carried how long does it take to shoot somebody at a distance of six feet no matter what you do it and you do it nd you thought oh a matter of how many but not all that much quicker than it takes to put one foot on the gas and have the car advance four feet i have takes a step there's a series of problems with the car positioning issue here this is only with none of the witnesses other mr frank said he was standing do you think that taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the point of the testimony about the effort at least in so far as it relates to  short little distance from which they drove it driving occurred substantially long enough for multiple other officers to arrive at the scene no one says that mr sevan was driving his car and up high rate of speed some form of tibia injury he went to the hospital after the incident he had a quarter sized groups there was and there is no evidence in the record that he suffered from any other injury he then subsequently claims without any proof of medical records testimony of sergeant french that he suffered any injuries once in law whatsoever as a result of this and not and it's and it's crucial to realize that none of the evidence none of the witnesses were godless of whose versions you credit other than m has says provides testimony that's very similar to mr martin he knows captain anthony knows testimony although there's a slight differences and we've already explored what mr gross has said as to what as to what he necessarily observed so you have a series if the current backing up it doesn't seem to me that that is the light most favorable light if it's not someone got it far in a confined space and he's going to try to go forward backing anywhere is to french's place that may provide mr french to retreat to to avoid it necessarily an injury but we don't need to go there this juncture because the the light and the light most favorable to us the car was not moving it was stopped when when sergeant french and the like must be able to decide when he fired the shot correct what you said let me just pause on that one you said a moment ago in answer to one of the questions that the i recall five times in multiple parts of his body he wasn't just struck and his upper torso he was also struck in his arms there are a handful of the i think the forensic show that the bullets came and knocked on directly in front of him today also came from from an angle so i don't have the degrees in front of me but i'm not sure if you're talking about if you're talking about  ds in bullet wounds in various parts of his body those parts of his body if they were arms for example showing he might well have been in motion as he was hit by bullets so i'm not sure how how how how those how how the angle at which the the bullet entered his body really proves anything very much unless you know exactly how his body was was was faced at the split through the windshield them all of them go through the windshield are not necessarily from that on there were a number of them that came from officer french's loth so as the vehicle turned to the right he was hole down into the left so there is an ngo trajectory of the ball that's through the windshield which would indicate the officer way into his left suiting back to his right so the most photographed i believe are on the record the expert reports the courts inquired about they're not in the record because we have we we stayed expert discovery pending the resolution of this issue for a lot of very practical reasons in all likelihood but their goals have been and have been all where he is relative to the front of the vehicle so he's not standing in the middle of the for with with your side of the hood and his left and right he's standing  millington says that and french says that the car was moving forward french and that he was in fact kinda against the bars french's version but gross says that's not so that's what makes a