jurisdiction in the context of civil disorder situations and as i prepared for argument in this case i took it into my head to look at john adams is speech for the defense in the boston massacre case which mr  will probably say d is an apt analogy to the situation in st louis but i looked at john adams a speech for a different reason why would this vigorous champion of liberty take up the defense of those soldiers and i think  reading his speech for the defense i realize that he took up that case because he felt i think correctly that the tyranny of the mob and the everything that is treacherous to liberty as the tyranny of the st the rigorous analysis demanded by rule twenty three and section one hundred and eighty three and analyzing the right to equitable relief we submit that the plaintiffs in this the precisely the same situation as the plaintiffs in a shady lyttleton reserve a good and los angeles versus lions we think that they are attempting to have the district court become the superintendent of police in the city based d on hypothetical and speculative d potential future injury you feel that they did not demonstrate the kind of irreparable harm that would entitle them to the kind of equitable relief that the district court granted and i have to say that you know i do not think that the district court was irrational in the order that she crafted i think that was a reasonable order but i think it was an order that  did not and should not emanate from a district court in order to get around lyons and rizzo and o'shea plaintiffs in the district court have attempted d to paper that problem over with a conclusion that there is a custom in the city of st louis the police officers pepper spraying peaceful demonstrators and issuing they again unintelligible orders to disperse and one of the reasons that i inflicted the massive record on the district court and on this court was to give both courts a full and as complete a picture of a video picture of what happened in the city of st louis in september of two thousand and seventeen and how the police dealt with ongoing continuing protest marches and in some cases violence and the reason that i felt that the video was important and why import to the district court to dissolve the preliminary injunction on the basis of lack of standing record and which we attempted to make a fair sampling of what was going on that particular weekend and i think the video shows that the there were many marches there were many protest in the streets and for the most part the police escorted those protests and there was no evidence of the use of force d on any regular organized basis attempt to say that it was always used correctly but i think that that was not used to disperse peaceful protesters and this was in the course of arrests and i think that to the extent that the pepper spray was use certainly we are defending damage suits that are based on claims that it was in used improper or i think that illustrates another point with regard to the federal equitable jurisdiction i think o'shea the little n makes the remark that the standing issue for days into the authority of the court to grant equitable relief has shades into the issue of irreparable harm we do not think that the record shows that the plaintiffs can make the requisite showing of iraq likelihood of irreparable harm and they certainly have not made a showing that there are no adequate remedies at law the ordinances that issued were not found invalid by the district court the appellate issues make casual references to defective ordinances but i would point out that even if the city ordinances were defective their state statutes regarding unlawful assembly and impeding traffic which were the subject could have been the subject of enforcement and i think in this context it's important to emphasize the teaching and you have as versus bartlet in which the supreme court i think it made it quite clear that you don't that that you look at the th amendment before you try to determine if there's a st amendment violation subjective reasons of  in effect in other other settlement agreements out there pertaining to the police department with or without with respect to the use of force the templeton decree expired by its own terms but functional the order in templeton and embodied its terms in the use of force policies of the city which to me and how refutes the notion of the city has a cost them a policy of misusing pepper spray and civil disorder situations and yet the templeton decrees used against does a settlement that we entered into in good faith as more evidence that this city violates the constitution  city's standing orders on the use of force including the use of pepper spray were explored in the district court and they were part of the record judge perry found fault with those she found fault with the police department's implementation or observance of those orders but i think that the policy as far as the record goes of the city of st louis with regard to protests and the use of force is entirely within constitutional standards and i think the problem in this case is that the plaintiffs wish to substitute the district court for the police commissioner and the complaint the district that this is the kind of situation where the district court is not in a position to make the kinds of judgments that have to be made by the police in the field and i think that the district courts own fat and the relief the distr fashion and with regard to declaring on lawful assemblies you know they as one of our witnesses the commander of the civil disobedience team commented you know it dispersing is not rocket science you know you go home you know people go their own way and it's sixty you don't just tell op ok move from this corner three blocks down and remain a mop and i think th  so i think that the difficulty here is that as as the record demonstrates the police were facing a very fluid situation there was an attack on the merits house which the district court did not question the police response to that and there's no real serious dispute that the police gave dispersal orders d and used chemical munitions pepper spray and i think pure gas as well and the district court had no fault to find with that well i think there that demonstrates that the that what we're dealing with here is the civil disorder equivalent of the chokehold case the district court was determined the the very distressing incident in which some rogue officers beat up what they thought who they thought was a protester and turned up you know undercover police officer but i think that incident in and of itself illustrates you contrast that incident with the video record of the discipline and restraint demonstrated by the police overall and then you also bear in mind that those officers have been indicted that remedies of damages the remedies of criminal prosecution are real and they they operate to constrain the operator the activities of the police and forcing the law in the context of mass civil disobedience and i think i think the issue we made with regard to the in the propriety of the class representatives further illustrates th standing issue mr mobley was not recording a protest he was recording a chance encounter by police with two individuals on the street he was accosted his phone was seized but then it was returned and he went on his way and his a model you know the district court authorized her to be a representative of the class but in the district court's order on the preliminary injunction you know she excluded situation and the officer sprayed her at a choice of either going hands on and physically removing her or using pepper spray chose these pepper spray got her out of the way and i think that was an entirely legitimate  of force the but apart from that it illustrates the adventitious nature of any of these uses of force and i think that you cannot you know ms i'm odd certainly is not said she plans to blockade buses in the future and  you know we have no d reason to believe that the protests in the future will be the subject of you know a policy a custom of always pepper spraying peaceful demonstrators and always giving unintelligible dispersal of orders and i think the i think the footnote seven and alliance case which i happen to review has night and it was important struck me somewhat more forcibly was that even if there was a policy of having the police apply certain types of force always in certain situations the plaintiffs have to show that they are the ones you know that they are likely to suffer from this practice in the future and mr mobley certainly has not demonstrated any likelihood that he's going to suffer from any pressure any unconstitutional practice in the future ms a mob certainly is not  is you know an observer she doesn't claim to be a protester so i think that the sum and substance of this is that there is no standing and that the district court should be reversed i would also point out and i'd rather novel issue which struck me as i was reviewing the case d when i got into it years ago having like judge arnold plump to retirement but i think that it's important to point out that certifying a class for injunctive relief in this context is going to have it threatens the city's right to trial by jury in the pending damage suits including a class action damage and so i think the i think the as i mentioned before the confluence of all of these principles strongly suggests that the district court should be reversed and i will reserve the rest of my time for a bottle if i ma very good thank you injunction itself there's a separate document that the injunction separate from the that was entered the same day right after the memorandum in order and the enjoyment is against the defendant the city and so i believe the city is the defendant in this case and it is the city's customs that are being challenged in this case so any contempt then read a remedial order was entered and then and then there was someone high up enough in the police department who was obstructing the remedial order potentially there could be contempt for that person i would correct they would not have if they're held in contempt well i assume they would be someone who was outside bargain unit in the police department if we're talking about someone who is implementing policies customs but as the policy authorizing any officer to give unfettered discretion to give dispersal orders that can be retaliatory that can be vague and then to execute them using us without notice and without a chance to comply and also a custom of authorizing individual officers to use chemical agents without warning on citizens and gauge the criminal and surprisingly perhaps that is exercised more harshly when the protest when the police themselves out of the subject of the protests and these customs are not just one customs were in the years before and in the weeks after the complaint was filed and even going back to the incidents in two thousand and twelve which gave rise to that t after that officer undercover officer was beat up one of the two officers two of the officers who attacked him exchanged text messages the st said nothing we haven't done and if it was a author i've wondered about this there is a there's a state stand cheek on unlawful assembly yes there's also a st louis city ordinance with respect unlawful assembly but us stop in the material there is repeated reference to declaring an unlawful assembly where does this concept of declaring an unlawful assembly or the requirement that the unlawful assembly must be declared by someone where does that come from what's going on what's the origins of the act that's a prerequisite to the arresting someone for refusing to disperse the dispersal l it becomes a prerequisite for that kind of action but as i read this there seemed to be this idea that someone in authority in the command structure people who choose to protest again which all these class members have said they would do will face the full face and to be exposed to those customs again when they protest there are two  or perspective relief has the benefit of there being a single order single injunction that would provide relief to all of the platts the class here is very narrow it applies only to protest resolve on place like basis our contention is that the d alleged customs it's just that can be resolved or not on a case like basis and whether those customs if they exist are unconstitutional the district court's a junction says that the defendant city of st louis and its agents servants employees that represent it is will not enforce any rule d policy center and i think that it's important to point out that when the floyd rides erupted in the city d of st louis and police officers were being shot we were in constant communication to or to advise the police department with regard to the terms of the preliminary injunction it was a serious problem for the police and it remains a serious problem because the police don't know you know the district judge's order as i say i think good perry attempted to craft something that was lee's ball but in in her very effort to craft something reasonable she demonstrated that you can't craft this kind of in order to address these kinds of situations and i would say as far as the issue of custom and practice you know there is a practice that the police do not arrest or on lawful assembly unless an unlawful assembly has st been declared but the standard the discretion that the police have is the same discretion they have in enforcing any other valid law or ordinance probable cause and the police could arrest a mob on probable cause to believe there is no question that those people could have been arrested without a declaration of an unlawful assembly but the declaration is a i will say that that could amount to eat to a practice because the police use their discretion to try to enforce the law any reasonable way and probable cause does not become stale if the police have probable cause to arrest the timing of the arrest is  within their discretion but i would emphasize that what we're what we're involved in here is a preliminary injunction that constrains the police and in very perhaps the most difficult situation for police officers to be in short of having to go into a darkened building after an armed suspect i think that it's important also to emphasize that the definition of the class that the district judge adopted which was significantly different from that proposed by the plaintiffs is d d completely amorphous it applies to anybody who observes or participate participates in any kind of a demonstration of st amendment rights and i i submit that the record shows that after the th of september there was a mass another mass arrest on october the rd before the preliminary injunction and there was no pepper spray this was a mob that had blocked the interstate highway and they did botched onto another major thoroughfare and they were arrested and i think that there was ample probable cause to arrest them for one highway blockage and there was and the video evidence shows that the d officers conduct themselves entirely professionally that there was no pepper spray there was no up promiscuous use of force and you know frankly those seventy of the september the police officers with this it will disobedience teams acknowledge it was not a model operation it was not i submit that regardless of whether that was a good or bad operation on the th of september it nevertheless demonstrates that these things cannot be damning you cannot demonstrate at this time that plaintiffs or the class will be subjected to any unconstitutional behavior in the future and that's why we yes i didn't pay enough attention to my clock on the screen here is i think my time is out