lori the court below dismissed it on grounds of qualified immunity surrounding lori's conduct and that's if you i think that that issue is essentially whether whether officer laurie violated it clearly if alex right of wh a reasonable officer would have understood under the same circumstances and to the part of contends that he did gardner case the seminal case on this issue establishes that officers  that the gunshot was in the district court's analysis prompted by the fact that it had been i'm sorry the plaintiff rammed through a doorway right before being shot and it looked like a burglary in progress essentially and tell the officer according to the court was you know would have resolved he thought that the plaintiff was threatening people inside now i think that that that that analysis failed to take into account that the officer had already opened fire there was a bullet hole on the side of the house and the the point it was was standing next door which as it turned out to be his door and well there's no denying that whitman bill richardson polka perth of all at the outset which is the basis of his obstruction play he was told to stop that that stop was found to be on top of the fight in the in the the officer said show me your hands don't move the plane have complied then the officer stumbled and the plaintiff did run again and got to the side entrance of his apartment it was down the same causeway where they were looking at each other and then and then when the officer tripped tripped and fell he got up and fired around missed and that's when the plaintiff soul that is way through the door and i understand basically didn't want to put his hands in his pockets to get it but i didn't put that in the brief so he hadn't broken any doors before the officer opened fire the officer was at the further end of the causeway there was a clear view and they were basically staring each other down gunshot lurch lurch to the left to get through the door essentially what is the  what is the clearly established the clearly established right here well i think that frankly you don't have to look further than garner because in garner the issue was there the there the suspect had actually committed a burglary in the dark of night and the officer and gardner shot the suspect simply to terminate a pursuit which which  the supreme court help doesn't justify deadly force in and of itself in the absence of reasonable fear for other safety so i think i think a reasonable fine fact finder could find that the officer was simply he failed to comply with the commands to stop and i did justify an arrest at that point under new jersey criminal law but it but we contend it didn't justify deadly force and that the officer under all the circumstances the officer really was just so i mean there's a there's a there's a larger issue of fact that the district court sort of avoided and that is that the that the officer accused the plaintiff from being armed from the outset of having a concealed gun in his pocket which he was charged with the charge was dismissed because of suppression hearing and he has always denied that he ever had a firearm on his person and he wasn't arrested i mean he didn't he wasn't found with  the court the court found that it was irrelevant because even if he was unarmed breaking through the door was the basis for the court's finding which we contest is a sufficient which we can tell closes down the said he initially stopped and handed the officer his bag with with a sandwich and a beer and told them he lived around the corner and there was no basis to stop them in the st place it's just you know we can test we can test  officer thought he saw and we confessed that he even had a gun or that the officer believe he had a gun and the only the only people who are making country claims in that regard are the two parties so it's he said she said there were other when he actually wounded him and the credibility issues surrounding the officer and in so far as nobody else even saw the gun where he alleged fell all make it a question of fact for the jury  and we also contend that the two caesars in this case essentially the mitchell caesar which was the investigatory stop that a criminal court found to be unjustified and then the the rest itself which which issues and had a knife and there was a part that she was an extreme but she was moving towards another woman  hypothetically if if the st shot had hit it mr richardson why would he still be entitled to qualified immunity yeah because the standard is not the level of injury or that's relevant to the nd shooting but even then it's a combination i would be about to play to start to turn toward the officer and the opposite belief that you have a gun and again it's believed that he had a gun is objectionable well i think that the difference between that casella case and this one is that in the casella case the suspect was clearly wielding a weapon and that doesn't seem to have been disputed but in this case there is a dispute as to whether the plaintiff had a weapon that justified a legit fear on the part of the officer back to the point about him having a bowl of the officers claim lot of these cases there's that issue of generality and specificity after garner but i think that in this case garner the facts and garner are particularly close to the facts of this case since  general principle pipe but it's so happens that the facts apply to other cases involve different sets of facts like some of the cases cited by the defendants have to do with car chases and and acting dangerously with vehicles are likely to sell a case in which this suspect really did have a weapon clearly in the view of the officer seem like she could hurt somebody with this case is different this case was a suspect who was fleeing who w  trying to stop a burglary about to happen because he opened fire before the guy both broke into the house and i think you know the issue of he told the officer he was at his house  corner that's another thing that a reasonable fact finder have to have to analyze because the streets you know there's like two corners pretty close together there's like a cross street and then ludlow street which is just passed across three there are facts at play that that a reasonable fact finder could interpret such that the officer wouldn't have shouldn't have a reasonable officer wouldn't believe that he was threatening anyone circumstances believe that's true that in garner the officer didn't claim to believe to be personally threatened but and but in our case we can test that the officer we can touch the opposite claim that he felt threatened or that that the suspect was on reasonably believe the suspect was armed so it's a fact finder rejects hi claim that he thought that the suspect was armed and as it turned out he wasn't much by the time they arrested him if that is the fact finder rejects that claim that it's basically garner this is not this is not a fear of the p and hope you stay safe