before the district court as well was that he ducked when he ducked he ducked to the right when he ducked to the right he got stuck between the the the gear shift and the the dash and when that happened is when the car got quite into gear so it's not the silly having it both ways it's he didn't actually take his hand and put it into drop him but what that happened is when he ducked he obviously must hit the gear shift pointing at the driver so there's no question that it's always been the case here and the facts of always before the court that he voluntarily ducked and that's something that i provided to the court i provide right but you know were intended will cause injury right that there's a substantial likelihood that you know what you're doing is going to cause a particular consequence yes what you're describing is  reflexive and an accident i don't agree with that i think it's comparative to people over scammer which was an only case that was a case where there was a police officer who pulled somebody over a person got out of the car he went into the response to being hit by the first shot to run into somebody deliberately leaving the scene he did literally duck yes you deliberately moved your honor it's what this recall are saying is that over never had any kind of control over his body to do anything which he was shot and that's not in fact the facts are in this case the fact is that he was shot if you take the facts in his favor at least twice while the car was stationary so  least with respect to their portion and that's not our that has nothing to do with the validity of the conviction to begin with so if anything is that there's a dispute is what happens then after he shot the first few times he was sitting there station there for thirty dying but a felony murder doesn't apply to an accident you know i'm not saying this is an accident it's not an accident when you have one continuous set of motions you do something which causes an injury to the police officer and he should have known that when you think you've got a claim it's not hex hard for at least the first two shots i think it's for all of them but i don't think there's any let's focus on ok i would pick been thinking that only applied to the first shot was what was the testimony was that there were two shots  solution or well if you look if you look at it your honor if and i pointed it out in my reply brief is you have three shots that he actually specifically remembers because you shot whole different parts of his body he specifically remembers one part of his like his shoulder and from those three the one that is the only one that he actually remembers that he was shot from when he was the carcass moving was the one to his leg so the obvious inference is those first two shots which were to the upper body was when he was it's i unquote shot would would be excessive for him but right at some point during the entire transaction in order for him to have state a claim that's consistent conviction he would have to have the requisite voluntary so if if if throughout the entire transaction he never as that voluntary is th could pick and choose i mean that well his name doesn't have to answer the question what was a voluntary act but but we've got his testimony that he's sitting there in the car in the officer fires before the cars moving right just testimony that right so and that describes excessive force right well except that if you follow the the the the point is that he has his statement that he was shot before the car started moving forward and that he he would have to have never developed for that to be true for that to be true and accepted as true he would have to have never developed the ability to have to do the voluntary miss necessary to have been convicted through the crime if the point is that he almost to shoot at talib or even though under his version of the facts they created the danger to themselves when they initially shot him without provide her voc haitian remember he says that he was shot in the chest and that somehow after he was shot and this is what he says in his brief in this court now i know but if by accepting his version of the facts they shot him a fell over struck the gearshift that puts the car in forward motion but when an officer created danger and then respond with deadly force no you know they can't and he would be correct if that's all that he said but remember in his reply brief he pencil points first of all mr tal afar is not one that's had all kinds of different positions in this case with respect to shooting you can't lose sight of the fact that this specific case the chicago police with this court said well if it was giving a parking ticket my problem is the one on the ground and fixed charges of aggravated battery if that hitting the police officer on the foot so we're