split second decision case but in this one it looks like the policeman story was not i had to make a split second decision it all happened too fast for me to really be sure whether  had the gun or not the policeman said i saw the gun it was pointing at me and the jury says that's not true my thought was it was a miracle to be able to shoot the gun out of the guy's hand without any pellets hitting the gun and damaging the gun and without anything you getting on a gun just it's the ultimate for a shot and it looks like then you know you've got a third and fourth version of the facts that you're trying to argue to as when jerry friday can judge me an excellent judge has made findings and factual findings exactly against you fearing intruders may have a legitimate reason to be prepared to defend themselves once a police say police or drop it raise your hands well  have put the gun down in my hands were raised the policeman as he had the gun in his hands and he was pointing it at me the physical evidence says it has to have been a saying this is like when yes the witness a question the answer would hurt him and he says i don't remember and and obviously he remembers and he's flying and you're saying well no nobody can say what's in his memory the policeman say nobody can say what i saw i don't believe i am saying but it doesn't follow because you can say what he saw if he claims to have seen something that's impossible for him to have seen at that instant it was impossible it wasn't possible for know to have seen him first and robin simply from the judgment and that is if the officer had said it all happened so fast i came around the corner i had been warned he was going to have a gun and i was afraid i say i saw him and i shot because i was in fear for in reasonable fear for my life i think he might have qualified immunity but he didn't say that he said something quite different he got two officers to corroborate that testimony under circumstances where it would have been very difficult for those others to have seen what he saw are can you tell me did he make some recorded statement shortly after the event consistent with his testimony at trial that he couldn't walk away from it is that what happened can you explain the gun being clean when the hands are all chopped up by the blast if the gun is in the hands i don't think you can your honor i think somewhere and i can't exactly that the policeman story is is physically impossible so i'm asking you give an explanation they could allow the policeman story to be the truth show me how you get a gun with no damage to or from the shock and pellets and no tissue or blood on it when the gun is in the man's hands and the policeman fires the own testimony he lays the gun down in his lap by that point after noting he has already recently feared for his life and made the decision to fire his own weapon he fires it and by that time the hands are off the gun and there's the where you're supposed to do it the first step is assume that what robinson says is true would there be a constitutional violation well yes that means put down a gun and raised his hands then the next step who's already killed another line horsemen after their state the problem that i'm having with the idea of the gun in his lap is he's lying and bad and it's nighttime and there's noise and it strikes me as legitimate for a person to have a gun in his life for self defense i'm thinking but your honor i thought you know i think what we're doing right now when we talk about that is we're looking at it from the perspective of the civil rights claimant in the law is very clear that we have to look at it from th i'm qualified immunity is the appropriate argument to me and i'm kind of watching my time and i did want to get back to a point that ran through it but go ahead take another few seconds and wrap up and when it's read that means your time is telling how much you're it thank you you're asking you know shouldn't the officer know that anybody's lying in their bed is going to you know we intend to you know or are likely you know trying to protect themselves against  the language contained in the air where there was a factual dispute about whether at that point the officer shot the suspect whether they were still you know locked in the pan hand combat or whether they had stepped away from each other and the court comment  officer maybe he could have to close there's a big there's a big distinction the fight was still going on billings him and the policeman were still fighting for who was going to win this deadly confrontation in this case the jury has decided the fight is over as the testimony that the jury evidently bought was robinson's that  seconds to figure out what to do many alleghany by the city attorney in their briefs which i have to address and also their oral argument they said that mr robinson backed away from but but i was laying down not completely just part of my back was raised up the reason i was like this but i was lying back and what happens when someone like this is lying back which you couldn't do in the witness ch your hands go back your fingertips are now facing behind you and your wrist is now closer to the officers your fingertips i think that was his testimony and then i said for the record the appeared to be about a twenty to twenty four inch between the hands the court all right so that's where the twenty to twenty four feet came from but again mr robinson i was involved but i was lying back at the trial before the laying on the floor in front of the takes twenty two of their opening grief say quote the court's characterization of the events was also extreme eyes with officer got his testimony and unsupported by robertson's own testimony nowhere in there he says i don't know how far off the gun my hands were in their brief they claimed that expert testimony does not support the judge's findings the hands are like this and they argue with page twenty five of their opening brief quote the value could only say that the physical evidence was consistent with robinson's hands being somewhere off the gun but in place two seventy six and two seventy seven of the rm and then travel up through the fingers question let me ask you more specifically you read m when he raised his hands answer right question and did he say he was laying back at that time answer yes he did question as i stand here with my palms up as i lean back that put my dear chips towards the rear of this is not a case where the officers were confronted with someone they believed was dangerous the evidence shows that the search warrant for drugs only there's absolutely no evidence that mr fayed any information that mr roberts he was dangerous other than the fact that he had a gun and behavior are likely to be a little more dangerous because they get a little less protection from the legal system and have to furnish more of their protection themselves i agree with that but i'm simply saying that this is not a case where some time just put in the fact that the opposite information that he was a very dangerous so in fact despite the claim by the ellen this case mr robinson's testimony physical evidence expert testimony in this case all not only corroborate mr robinson but prove beyond a reasonable doubt his scenario was correct you have the three officers in this case and we now know that mr robson was very lucky to have the physical evidence because it was no physical evidence of all the jury in the criminal case had it was the fact