video evidence as well as the testimony through the deposition show that in fact there was excessive force and that the determination should be made by a jury the facts of this case are pretty straightforward not overly complex essentially what we have here are two young black males driving an eight mile which is the dividing line between detroit in the suburbs and they're between the area in the city of warm between their back and who are roads is the driving they're pulled over for some alleged traffic violations mr lowry the plaintiff in this case complies with all the officers commands they enter into a dialogue he doesn't understand why he's being pulled over nonetheless he's patted down and  pills found there transferred over to the one place department booking station there transferred without incident there's there's some some dialogue going between the answers but transferred without incident they get to this booking room which is kind of were  that's exactly yet but that's not a threat i don't think it can be viewed as a threat and i think it goes to show off surprise was in tegan izing and set up a presentation as mr laurie because what does he do if you felt threatened you felt threatened during that time he would not have removed those handcuffs and i think that's a jury determination as well to decide did he feel threatened because you takes off his handcuffs i think that's very important i don't know how open up it was and report it's very important if you feel threat you don't take out those handcuffs on a defendant furthermore he's inside of booking room in a police department there's no no risk of flight or him going anywhere so when you release those cops he was looking for a reason to attack mr lottery and he does that by saying hammie your co any and when he tosses in the coat at that time he says i don't like essentially said i don't like the way you did it i'm coming after i'm going to show you how tough i am in so that kind of goes into whether or attack you if we don't like the way you did it and so we're going to be at and we have to remember that even though there's a dialogue going on there isn't there's no threat it's not and i'm going to be job as soon as i get out of violation for changing lanes you know one of erotically he had possession of one ecstasy pill on him not to say that they're not serious but there's no violence there's no armed and dangerous there's nothing that an and then we had the ripping of an earring mr laurie's era there's there's no excuse for that there's no reason for that and then they further go on and they put him in the restraint chair after was an actively resisting and after their credibility and the believability of the testimony be the thing is we don't always have video evidence of things and here we do and i don't know  but when you do please review it carefully because there's no there's nothing i see in there and there's nothing in there that shows physical gesture physical aggressiveness towards this officer it's merely the following of a command tossing left before the booking that is correct independent defendant hofmann i was there when the germans were arrested pricing campbell patted them down but i don't doing that i can see where i'm overlooking something that's why i'm asking seems like perhaps we shouldn't be in the case if any hofmann did here believe he he did leave a miniature for several hours yes thank you thank you paro i will respond to the arguments that were made we've briefed it extensively so i am not going to go through the facts unless the court has questions the first one of the to make is with respect to the opponents claim that  laurie was transferred without incident he indicated that there was a dialogue but there was not an incident and i think judge clay pointed out perfectly that that the dialogue that that when i was not merely why my being arrested as as coun suggests here today it was a threatening aggressive and it's all recorded a dash cam that is part of the record here and so you have a sort of aggressive behavior not only do you do i tell you that you have an analogy you see it on the video but  aggression once they exit that big bust out of it or an officer hoffman gets out it's just officer price then in the booking area and it's at that point that mr large becomes even more aggressive and he becomes even more agitated and again you don't have to look at the video and you don't have to look at the what the grand good deed goes unpunished but the reality is and it's important after two minutes officer price was ready to process and fingerprint mr laurie he does not do so mr laurie testified to this fact and officer press says but to the back to the video shows he attempts to remove the handcuffs mr laurie tour it turns into him he is cursing again and he waits he waits another ten minutes to muster laurie calms down he goes back to the property he discusses things with them when mr laurie is calm that then he decides to move the handcuffs another point that was made today is that and it was made again in the lower court rejected that the officer asked mr laurie to take off his jacket and it to him and he does exactly that that is either a misrepresentation or an error of what's actually in the record mr laurie testified that he was told to stay seated he was told to sit down on the bench stay seated on the bench take off your jacket and hand it to me and what he did in stat and the support and as he stood up he takes off his jacket and he throws it at the officers had that is reasonably understood by officer price who's alone with these two men one restrained one now unrestrained and standing against commands that is reasonably understood as an act of aggression i want to point out that that it's not just that it's really understood that small thing  but that we have all of the aggression before that i've already talked about and in addition to that we have this jump rope like action were mr lara's trying to remove his handcuffs to the front of his body mr others are prices he doesn't know he's trying to get free which is why the booking process moves forward but all of that aggression it doesn't just get dismissed because an officer can reasonably take account of the full circumstances and all of his interaction with his particular arrestee when he makes the internal says the reasonably objective internal analysis on whether or not this individual is assaulting him or could assault him if he's not taken to the ground or handcuffed and so so that that jump rope like action should be taken a example of what possible justification could there be for ripping the earring out so mr laurie's testimony is that when he stood up he thought that his ear and was ripped out of his ear his his testimony is not that struck him nobody punched him nobody kicked him there was none of that nobody ripped out his earring his earring came out during the course of the takedown so that there's a distinction problem is this contest the summary judgment we have to take things yes you know but it's not contested when what is contested and that's the distinction and i have we've cited a number of cases and i prefer and actually i have a number of more and the distinction between the cases where reasonable for where there is force and the question is whether or not that use of force is reasonable the cases where you are presented with a question of fact is either because there's an issue of gratuitous force their strength game their you know the obvious or goes beyond what is necessary to subdue the suspect example of that would be  mean yeah there was a time when the try to get his hands in front of him that's all it was and he was told not to when he put him back and he sat down and he's sitting there he gets up he's instructed to get up it's got a hand up here and a hand there and it's i mean you do see him tossing the track i mean these tossing it over the guy gets it and even then i mean he takes i'm bound he's down for a long time other people come in to help you don't see him struggling at all there's and there's no indication that he's struggling or giving them any kind of a hard time and yet he's down there for an extensive period time with you know with head on his head and all do not get off the bench or on hand have to not get off the bench i'm surprised testified he was instructed to stay seated do not get off the bench and instead what he did is he stands up and he does not hand his jacket he throws it at him and it's not that he tossed it to the officer and said he threw it at his hat and in fact does cover his hat well i guess you want to characterize it that way i also looked at the video i would not call that tossing i would not call that throwing  intention and i think that that's very very relevant at this point he is flinging his jacket he's not toss each and he's not handing it to him as instructed he's not sitting as instructed the question then is does officer press take in that's who tell any of this individual's conduct up to this point does he reasonably believe either that an assault has occurred or that an assault is imminent and what the trial court how it is not that what he didn't have to get to the question of whether an assault occurred that it was reasonable for officer price at that point to believe that if he did not subdue mr laurie that an assault would occur and that was based on the threats that it happened even though the blatant disregard for the fact that you know he was told to sit down and said stop and try to jump out of his handcuffs that he's told to sit down and hand his jacket over and he doesn't do that that he's yelling cursing while in the booking room that his core rusty is sitting there and laughing and antagonizing him and also very very important and we say the martin case for this is that after price is entitle to consider the fact that there is both alcohol and x a c and play here and so he has a reasonable understanding and belief and it is wholly objective lee reasonable for him to take account of the fact that this individual is fact that's why mr arias asked about whether or not his hall and the rear desk can video mr laurie denies being intoxicated of course he was the driver of the vehicle but when mr campbell points to the rear of the vehicle there's a red solo cup they now say that that solo cup didn't have any alcohol in it but but at the time mr campbell adamant and his testimony yes i told the officers that alcohol was involved that evening in addition mr campbell tells the individuals that they were at a house with these young girls  prior to being stopped by the police and that he himself was under the influence of more axes he than he had ever taken his life that's what he says at the scene during the arrest officer price in addition to that mr laurie that he denies having taken any is found with an  pill in his pocket and so the idea that drugs or alcohol should be a factor in what officer price can take account of is just misplaced he's entitled to consider the fact that a rat behavior or quick mood changes that those are the types of things that can occur with these two individuals mr campbell for example has the giggles and he goes from having the giggles to screaming to incite mr laurie to fight the officers going back to having the giggles and so they're actually observing at least one of them in words any attempts you know to manipulate handcuffs when they at occurs and that occurred in this case not because i say it occurred but because the plaintiff's own testimony and he testified to this to the things that he said to these officers it's  into the action that that you know leads the avs are to believe that now the plaintiff is going to make good on his and his prior threats to them they take him down right he's down there for a long time with increasing force being used on him and there's no indication the there's any type of resistance so can you address i can  points that the first is absent price has been down on the ground for a couple minutes and he's trying to rehang cuff and mr lorry testifies that he is not giving him his hands he refuses to cooperate whether or not  kicking back no you're absolutely right video doesn't show that mr largent testified that he was not assaulting officer price on the ground but he is moving in such a way and refusing commands in such a way that officer price undisputedly cannot get him handcuffed in fact it is not until after surrendering his comes over and applies what you what you refer to as you know an increased level of force and that is he uses his body weight on the upper part of mr laurie's body a is shown on the video that he cannot get in handcuffs but it is important that we consider mr larry's deposition testimony because he admits he says you know the blue comes over and you can see a boot and there's force being applied as had news not sure what's going on back there is one of the factors that can go into the reasonably objective analysis of whether the officer reasonably understood that in the salt was imminent that that just like verbal threats maybe maybe an arrestee will make good on verbal threats and maybe won't but that the officer can take account of the fact that one is under the influence of alcohol or drugs as an additional indicator of whether or not that is likely to occur and so with the with the threats made here the  jacket as had or the flinging of the jacket as had been taken in account with the use of or suspected use of drugs that all of those things taken together than objectively reasonably lead the the very brief here the this concern of all call in ecstasy there's there's no evidence that mr large was drunk there is no evidence that mr laurie was ecstasy molly whatever you want to call it there is evidence though that the passion or the vehicle was there's no dispute there's no evidence showing that he was acting irrationally because of all there is no evidence to show that he's acting erratically because he was on some sort of truck so i think that argument doesn't hold much weight and they can reason to my next point which is this we keep on keep on hearing that he's not being complains not being compliant but every time he's told to do something he behaves stop talking he'll stop talking he'll start up again but i'll stop talking and here it was on reasonable force thank you thank you