jaw i want to tell you something right off the bat i am concerned that the district court did not read the evidence in the light most favorable to  ok so i'll start out with that i am concerned about that and that there there may be error here but i also have a concern that your brief is taking parts of defendant evidence that doesn't square with your own client's testimony and picking and choosing the parts of the defendant i think you understand what i'm saying i think i do judge and i think our brief actually pointed that out we said early on that we understand that the facts as we allege them were not were all disputed that you know that officer davis had a completely different outlook on this case then did we but for purposes of summary  judgment i contend that mr striker's version of the facts is the one that has to be looked at because what we're talking about is whether they are in dispute or not and if one looks at the case a light most favorable to the plaintive that means that mr striker's testimony is what counts and not officer davis because there are as i give you a few examples of i may a jury excepts officer davis's testimony as true he's going to win this case but that's for a jury to decide and not for a judge on summary ju  but the point is that mr striker was in fact going back to the truck when he was taste and whether it was in compliance with officer davis's command or not that's what happened and if he was in fact going back to the truck for whatever reason and was one of the concerns i concerned about is whether your client was reasonably obeying the officer's direction in this particular well i'm not sure back to the truck and off of the davis is a little vague about those as well but there was no dispute the officer davis had a right to arrest stryker the dispute is whether he use excessive force in doing that and without even telling him he was under arrest without going through the continual force that officer davis testified about and recognized the st thing he did was tase streicher in the back and for failure to comply that is clearly excessive with when he doesn't say you're under arrest he doesn't use any other less severe method of either arresting him or getting him to comply and that i think is really the critical issue here is if we were alleging false arrest then i think the question about whether stryker was was complying when he denied being told to go back is a more salient question but if the only question is excessive force then i would suggest that his that the the use of a taser with out even telling him he was under arrest without giving him any warning is clearly excessive and that is the essence i think of the case particularly where the more serious crimes run the  determination and by the way hit and run without without injury is still a misdemeanor in alabama so in any event what we're talking about is at best a non compliant a non compliant but subject who however is not actively resisting arrest because every new is under arrest and was not attempting to flee and under those circumstances  i would suggest that there's obvious that the force used was excessive and i'll just mention one thing what is most significant here i think of all the various disputed facts davis says stryker tried to elbow him and then and then davis attempted an armed guard takedown and when that failed tiet stryker stryker denies attempting to elbow him says there was no on bar and take down and t and earlier in the evening mr striker objected to following officer davis commands about moving the truck and other things and in fact off the told him to come and after being told to come here that's when stryker turned and started to walk away from davis and death with the jury found was a violation of one of him so he doesn't get to read litigation whether or not his turning away and walking away from dave is it's not so clear to me what that conviction  criminal justice just a failure to obey in any one command would be enough to establish that conviction to sustain that conviction complaint but that doesn't mean that we are that we have to construe that conviction as having necessarily found that he violated that  disobeyed for orders eleven dollars would be enough there's not much i can tell from that conviction as to what sustained it is necessarily so he didn't see a need for the camera to be  attorney the district attorney instructed the state trooper to charge him also with regular driving and they go to trial he's convicted on the speeding but and found not guilty on the record driving and seventeen miles per hour over the speed limit he could not release again whether or not that commands the problem is that failure to comply with any one of them would be enough to sustain the conviction i mean into speeding situation he was either speeding or district court also got it right and granting summary judgment for the city of homewood having said that let me quickly add just a couple of points to what's already been said about the district court's determination that mr striker  show at the home what place officers volleyed his constitutional right against excessive force the case boils down to whether an objective police officer in the same circumstances would believe two things one that officers also lawfully use force after mr striker says that he had his hands now regarding that st point the st hazing of mr striker that hazing was consistent with this court's holding in the dr circumstance where the deceived actually was fighting with the officers and not to god as his hand because the officers were the ones who provoked that response they could not rely on their their tasing without warning a resisting on violent subject who was guilty of a minor misdemeanor is excessive the other thing is y even davis is testimony about his training and the bad the use of continuing force makes it clear that he knew best that he understood that the st thing you do is office is present the next thing you do is  in what they can and can't do constitutionally and officer davis testified to what he could and could not do constitutionally and he indeed admitted if the facts wore as strik claimed then that was inappropriate use of force so he was clearly