the honor two the judges of the united states court of appeals for the pleased the court i'm honored in privileged to be here today representing sir robert cooper in this matter in this is an appeal from the denial of all of out of unity in a police shooting case the question in this case is whether a reasonable officer under the specific circumstances presumably in this case you would permit objective standard today whether reasonable officer could have believed that he was it harms one and that's what i want to talk with you about here multiple times so if you get to the point where you're past the st two maybe the st three shots and the victim's cars now side the police officers car and he's over to the side so he's away from the even if you credit the st couple of shots and placing officer in harm's way once that's done for the remainder of the shot so why isn't that a factual question for the jury the issue indicates this is not whether the officer is in harms way the issue is whether a reasonable officer would have believed to be in harm's way for from an objective standard for purposes of qualified immunity stark soon we can take the video was a give so when you watch it circumstance for the st shot two very different the last several shots is it your position that the because the victim is now not coming at the officer he's overall size and i don't i don't think there's any evidence in this case that the victim was armed or made any type of threatening gestures with some other weapon there's nothing about contraband or other individuals of the vehicle it's just the officer and the victim so tell us why take a look out from the standpoint of reasonable contents seems to me to be factual probably and linked but it's our position there is no dispute as to what the while i disagree i think if the if the facts are clear as they are here from the video if the facts are clear one other reasonable officer could have believed he is a danger is a pure work question of law that's applying  whether he was actually in things your or not is not the question the question is whether reasonable an officer could have believed he was in danger and in this case you if you apply albums were actually if you if you apply the law to the facts as we extended surely to the issue of law rather than question of fact this the district court's order in this case clearly stays there is an issue of fact officer cooper's use of force as the planers vehicle when officer cooper shot the i believe he parsed out one shot versus the six additional shots through the side door and side window and your honor danger which is the only circumstance under which he could shoot or c s mr dallman hotshoe ting as mr coleman had not had not the law of that the law was clearly established he seems to want to parse out and he wants to get credit for the fact that officer began shooting in never never made it never look back he says it only only does not apply beyond today if it's a close call if it's a gray area if it's a hazy area in qualified immunity applies and what i'm hearing from this court is that the question of whether he was in fact in danger  fired the last shots is important to this court but i believe whether he was actually in danger or not is not the issue the question is whether reasonable officer could have believed he was in danger and it best that's a hazy area it's a gray area