is that the police officer was attacked shot and they had to kill the seed in self defense that's what the lower court decided i think it is obvious to those are not the only  relevant in this case one of the worst important facts is that the police officer the minute he arrived on the scene knew that the to see didn't was mentally incapacitated he testified to that he knew that that was true he also knew that based on the staters that he had been taught and the training that he had been given he'd been given crisis intervention training he knew that what he should do was get back up directive one thirty six and the main objective is identified as identifying protecting not only the mentally disabled person but also innocent bystanders and family members in the immediate area you know when when an officer sees someone who is i mentally disabled and potentially dangerous and violent going into an apartment building then isn't it consistent with directive one thirty six the officer  individual precipitated by the police officer doing what he did trustee committed to become and then he shot him with a taser so the officer started the whole thing and didn't follow proper procedure but at some point there was a different i mean the dynamics changed and with regard to those dynamics we also disagree because what happened here when that confrontation occurred this cooler heads many many times look at the other investigation they did have that investigation and that wounds and that entire investigation was who's directing the one thirty six mentions let's let's take the last case you heard you heard the last case that the police officers were at the door and there was a bunch of noise inside and they had a policy though that would serve as a basis for my ability here not just a violation of a police policy because as i said there are different kinds of policies there are different kinds of directives what i think is true is identify themselves as police if they broke into blue or enter somebody's house and someone picked up a knife because they didn't have a gun it was ok to stop a whole intruder those circumstances would make a totally different case and that's why we have to look at the as you said to protect the police bystanders and the individual also we should this is a verse of the policy which was ignored and in a way this officer based all that we know created this situation because  conduct the entire time was reasonable so there was no how could it be reasonable if he knew he should offer back up he knew that he should notify the police station where he was well just like fashion cleare he he and he said come on walk around naked all night probably has mental problems correct and he knew that he should not by himself approach this person he should get at least another o to what constitutes reasonable behavior reasonable expectations on the part of the officer by looking to policies put in place to address a specific risk and  that for the officer to simply get out i mean things went bad of course and in hindsight it would have been much better if this hadn't happened obviously but at the movie and i'm not sure that we can call the officer unreadable b third circuit at that point in time when might decide that question so starks is not it's not been brought in in the third circuit ramn it says that you need to have this this the where you have  essentially put himself in front of a car that was accelerating toward him so the officer really left himself with no choice but to me to use deadly force to save himself so perhaps in that situation  do the individual who is teased that did not happen here but that was another attempt to escalate and therefore another step in the cox machine that the plaintiff can't overcome so  chasing someone with stolen something from macy's the thief got in the car and a police officer shot him in the court send it back because it failed at the lower court wrongfully into summary judgment and that's where an officer jumps in front of a fling vehicle you're placing yourself in a situation which you are going to have to shoot this person and then lose grounds out recently would be justified the second thing i wanted to talk about was with  regard ching calling for backup that really is not clear that he did that in fact he claims he did that there's no radio transcript of that and later it is that position he says i mean i have i'm not really sure what i said i got on radio i don't really control a two person patrol to go there and defend in this case was back up to that to proceed control because radio goes that they're not going to sit in individual pickup officer to that scene so th find a car or two officers in it and actually they say on the previous two occasions when the defendant was there to get me to help and they didn't see a naked person and they just left and so this was the third time we went back and this time without any backup and without waiting for any backup let's let's assume that there's a violent although we've heard some arguments to the contrary even so didn't we address just that in my mind where the the argument was it violated policy not to set up a perimeter in the woods and have backup and have had that sort of safeguard in place to prevent the risk of  being chased into the woods where you might have violence where where the decision to violate policy arguably provoked the response that then