essentially it looks at whether there is a case that puts an officer on notice that his or her actions violate clearly established law and i appreciate your arguments about at the time of this event that would have put the officers on notice even assuming this affidavit to be the accurate accounting of what happened because again it's not really what's in the head of catches what's in the head of the deceit and it's not any of that it's what would have an objective officer see hear experience ok taking the facts and inferences in favor of the non movement but then looking whether there's this particular  without some good reason ok but you said there's been a number of cases involving these cars and you're inside  in which i was on the panel that was reversed eighty one without even oral argument on a police officer standing on an overpass shooting at car a car coming down an interstate highway when no one actually was anywhere in the line of this person's car there wasn't anyone in the line there here there is a but there's a bunch of cars around and you have somebody at least five that everybody's admission backing up in and whatever so is this really a fleeing felon or is this think you called the police and told them i have a gun i will kill officers that person is going over one hundred ten miles an hour these are all these are all dangers this is in this case i told you that the judge decided to there was reckless allow the officer on the bridge to use under the court's ruling to use deadly force the difference is we don't have that in this case the dangerous the dangerousness in this case is disputed so they have to let him get miles an hour on an interstate highway in amarillo outside of amarillo where that's not that uncommon frankly but in any event those are more extreme situations than this but on the other hand this is more extreme than the situation of somebody running in on foot and on our person running away here we have a guy in a car and i guess what i'm asking is that what wayne did the officers have to let him get away and then exchange gage in a high speed car chase th creates all the problems that mullen x it's got to be here is we're talking about our position would be it would be the same number one i think it's a decision these be made by three based on disputed facts and i think if you look at the god with case you case or cases that are very much like this case on like the demoniacs case in those cases issues which the court didn't say well the plaintiff automatically wins but this is an issue that needs to be decided by the jury officer or veering towards an officer then that suspect is putting an officer in danger justifying officer shooting but if the officer is putting himself in the danger in creating the jeopardy and then saying well i'm going to the  because those are really informative and in fact sometimes the video can be dispositive under the supreme court's precedent but i didn't i was unable to access this video is this privy you know in the record and as of in is it up the actual incident or already watched it i don't know and i'm just the only one who can't find it if i thought it was in the record in maybe all dressed up i believe it was for the record it was provided it was there's a very long videos like two hours in this all happens in a matter of you know that the self able police it was the video wasn't entered in the evidence logs they wouldn't got a copy from the store and there was a store as a cricket store and they got there they put it on up on up on thumb and they're dressed to not look like police they're driving cars that are beat up don't look like police cars they contend that they did part of their identification came when they turned on flashing lights at home week wake's they're like in the grille of the  vehicle so you can see when there are some vehicles that show up after the fact you know there's a call of shots fired in the it was showing you can see the vehicles with lights on you can see the blue like saloon a year ago when these vehicles pull up it contradicts their testimony that blue lights are on you can't hear the sound so you can't tell if there's a sign on the video but the video contradicts the officers testimony never got it just like the affidavit of pitches contradicts it just like the physical guy was running at him no catch it says catch it says that he puts his hand on the hood the car goes backwards in then he fires actually no one says the officer ran to the car except your expert witness or something  a genuine and same material that what we're saying your honor is that any there's no evidence that that mr ban is presented that would allow them know that no evidence whatsoever their only evidence is this  affidavit that was obtained at the last hour if we think that the affidavit has to be considered and i know you don't agree with that but if we think you have to consider it do you lose ok how do you win if the catches affidavit is considered your honor  this is a qualified immunity case and they must show that there was a that there was a violation of constitutional law and that there was clearly established law at the time of the incident that would leave the reasonable officer to believe that his actions the legal standard your honor i'm not saying that there is none of those facts fact issues matter but there's no proof in the record of the way plaintiff's contention is that this occurred there's no proof in there that even his own expert is not contending that officer logan jumped in front of a moving vehicle what the evidence will show as there'd been none depositions taken all of south even police officers what the evidence was show as that these officers jumped out surrounded this vehicle he backed up into a police cruiser hold for the first time hitting officer officer logan backed up we had a police vehicle a vehicle again they came forward and officer mogen was trying to get out of the way and he realized he could he thought he was going to be run over he had his hand on the on the hood as evidence but deion kept an affidavit as evidence by the expert and at that point he shot to prevent from being run over now having is just that matter whether or not they thought they were drug dealers or police officers your honor there's no there's no pregame i keep going back to record there is no proof in the record that they thought they were police anything other but that they didn't if there's a fact is ue on whether they identified themselves then that's still not a constitutional violation now believe the plaintiffs even conceded in the district court that not all of the officers clearly identified themselves but i believe they conceded that some did all of the officers testified under oath and depositions that at the very minimum that there were allowed sirens going off that there were multiple officers with lights asked why the issue of the issue with the council opposite his records previously about the video what the video the videos from about two hundred fifty yards and it shows all the officers going away from the video and it's and it's very grainy of poor quality one would not be able to determine that by that alone whether they had officer identification and taken a screw that they get to sue that for a second that in and of itself is not a constitutional violation what we have here is a drug dealer going to a drug deal with over not to marijuana you take a deep breath you're ok but it's but it's certainly not reasonable to believe that they thought it was anyone other than why is that not reasonable i mean don't drug dealers sometimes take on other drug dealers in your gang violence and this kind of stuff doesn't that they asked him did you know it was the police he said he knew well i think he knew but i told him i said so they don't call the police on you further at the point of thirty nine minutes one second catchin says the most important thing that we're here for today he said i imagine the officer thought he was trying to hit him so we shot a major for me but he's now contradicted that with the affidavit and i understand you think that means we should consider the affidavit but if we say no that's a credibility thing kanchan is maybe not very credible maybe a jury will think this guy i'll say whatever he thinks people want to hear at the moment but nonetheless we have the example day that which is a different story at least in part so if we are to accept catchments affidavit you said you could still win and i'm and so forth here we're kind of like a priest scotty here is and so i asked her counsel obviously you really answer it at what point are the police supposed to sort of let the danger of all so that they're then justified in shooting and only tea on captions but they took statements from little williams as well as hearing mouths who both stated that they knew that there were police officers she said i knew they were undercover officers on new one hundred percent those are the videos that i'm referring to those are not say but that we don't get to do that at this stage your honor again only on this qualified immunity it's the plaintiff's burden to prove that one that there's a constitutional violation and two that there's clearly established law he didn't take depositions of these people he had taken tea on captain's deposition there is no evidence on the record before the court let them fail as a matter of law even if you take tea on captain second statement it says that the officers hand was on the officer jeff logan removed himself from it's clear that there was a lot going on there but back back to i just can't imagine that we're going back to the clearly established law twice and the only at the point that he was about to be hit the second time i believe that that is a very seriously felony in that the question is whether officer logan and or the other officers believed that they were in a position of danger or that are letting two young texans flee would put the public in danger i would like to point the court's attention to the testimony of deposition testimony of officer lance shepard he did not shoot but stated that he would have but he didn't have clear police officers but rather gang rival gang members or rival drug dealers and mr van reacted the way he did would you say that was a reasonable reaction on his part robbery these were rabble gang members and they got out during a drug deal with guns would have been with it would it be reasonable for him to try to get away or try to defend himself in some way from him course is tragically dead and so he can't answer what what he was seeing so the question is what would put him on notice that this isn't a rival gang or other drug dealers or just random criminals or rather our police believe is objective reasonable to believe that they are in danger or the public isn't going to need to do it if the officers don't come in with lights and sirens they don't come in with the vests they don't yell police then is it reasonable for them to think dressed as police officers so all of that goes to your saying that mr vance putting people at risk and all of that is similar to scott and the harrison to luna in the lakes case cetera et cetera so the reason that you think they're similar is because he's reacting to police officers but i'm saying there seems to be dispute about whether the police officers put anybody on notice of that your honor i think the i think the plaintiff appellant conceded that there was still the still not a violation of his fourth amendment right there's not it there's not a constitutional violation and there's certainly no clearly established law that says if these officers don't identify themselves properly then then they are not the area that they were within ten to eleven feet in the officer that the car would be toward the officer in that case the officer couldn't say whether he shot before during or as he was going by a body shop because he reasonably object we felt like he was in danger so he can shoot even if it's not going to be here even if the person trying to get away if he feels in danger he can shoot him and that if a reasonable officer believes that they were in danger and obviously we threat is complete you know the reasonable threat to subside and that's what happened in this case we will but again going back and i realize i'm running out of time here but the issue is was there a constitutional violation the district court held that it was not we believe they were correct correct in doing so and the other issue they ought to prove was a clearly established law that would lead just logan and the other officers to believe that his actions were in violation of one's constitutional right at that moment you gotta walk it was not her and not that decision to come down a little after this it should not be considered there's not in this case to go or he was just walking walking alone he wasn't he didn't know what was going to happen in the car to gain versus the guard like in in in in your words the guard purposely is trying to prevent an escape by stepping out in front of the vehicle which is a which can be dangerous in thereby creating the danger which i see is analogous to our case here but you don't have any evidence of that i mean you don't have any witness who says he threw himself in front of the car but the circles with what we have  circumstantial evidence in it's part of his where he came from the position of the cars that there's the way this position there's only one there's only one place this car can go to get out and this officer whose credibility vehicle but where does he go he says one trying to get out of the way you do we have to just take his word for it or can we say it doesn't make sense to say you get out of the way but you go to the one spot where this discourse has a chance to get away and that's where you go when you're trying to get out and get out of the way the circumstances of the situation but that's circumstantial evidence i believe we're allowed to already to a jury does not make sense in that he must have been running there not to get out the way to prevent the left because i don't know that just being somewhere where you could be hit is enough to get you and you are i think the idea throwing like the train is coming down the track and i jump out in front of it versus i'm just kind of wandering around on the track and there comes the train those are two different sets of