counsel the way i read the people's grief is that they have confessed error as two of the issues so i'm going to contain my arguments to the remaining two issues unless the court has any questions about the issues that were  motion to suppress evidence the facts and these motions are always very factual driven and this is this is no different here the police happened by a large crowd they are not called there they have received no smith are writing in their car together and they go off and they meet up with part of it there were there was a there were testified that he was talking to four or five people on the sidewalk of twenty or twenty five feet away correct so does a cell if so if like but that's exactly right and that's an interesting issue given the state of the statute at that point in time well what i find most interesting is that these officers meet up with other officers and they form a plan and ask for hubert's language not matter the fences language is that the plan was to disperse this crowd which means scatter them and the plan was very specific we will converge the converts from the east and the other answers will converge from the best it's a kind of a squeeze play so the other officers arrive st and they begin dispersing the crowd there is testimony as to what words they use but everyone agrees that the verbal commands and i don't think it can be denied that mr webb obeyed those commands because he began to disperse the testimony was that the scene in this is police testimony  chaotic and people were running in all different directions and with all due respect to judge t v he made or found he made a factual finding that mr webb was the only person who ran in the direction of officer hubert's that best finding is simply not supported by the record and i think that's an important note to make to your honor's with the police coming in from the big for the front of it you're going to be running towards an officer no matter whether you  is looking over his shoulder at the officers who are telling him get out of here and as he's doing that he's running for office so i think judge t v is finding that my client was running toward officer hubert's and that because the this person is approaching him he has the right to do this type of stuff which we argue is an arrest we challenge that finding is well known or as we all know that mr webb is running and he's running in the in the direction of also said that he wasn't running toward him after hubert says we kind of met i was going east mr webb was going west however you have to break it down the fact is clear mr rabbit was obeying police orders at the time he was dispersing away from the officer who was who had arrived there earlier and was telling him to you know and everybody else there to leave the scene but the judge really did say that there's no evidence in the record that officer schubert's ever even saw mr webb in that crowd and if they're there to investigate a crowd disturbance and he never even see his mr mr webb in the crowd it kind of it kind of handicaps his belief bad mr wright was doing anything worthy of it both ways investigation is the key thing that he thought he was carrying a weapon the way he was running it holding his front of low the way correct and in fact they're they're hung so low and they're loose fitting i think is a good description and so because that's the fashion of the day what's to indicate someone's  a number on how many times he's seen baggy clothing where people didn't have weapons but one thing is clear he did very clearly testified he conceded that not every person in baggy pants is carrying a weapon  said no no no no no interestingly velo he left any of that out of any record he mistook his credibility yes absolutely it goes to his credibility his credibility was you know front and center at that at mr web trial for both of the remaining issues and so it's our respect the contention that judge davey got it wrong with respect to whether or not hearing mr rabb the way he was dressed the way he had his hands on his waist it not only did not have time to stop but didn't answer hubert's in two seconds have the time to make the judgment call that's necessary and required by terr absolutely not he wasn't committing any crime he wasn't seen committing any crime he wasn't heard to be creating any noise and there's that little issue or maybe british it was even in the crowd to begin with so there's a bit of reason i don't believe it matters because in the crowd i think it might matter as to where he was scenes you know whether he was in neck grass or on the side that might matter and that's one of the reasons why i asked the sports commission to cite additional forty during an argument is because of this court's opinion and quoting it might might have mattered to bad analysis but you didn't even hurt an aside this was a chaotic scene people running in all different directions and officer hubert  pants was after he died he struck mr our web in the head and had him on the ground now he changed that completely changed that at the trial when he said that he pushed him up against the wall and felt that the weapon there at the mansion to suppress him entailed at all times he did not feel a weapon and tell he had already taken mr webb to the ground and then when he couldn't get wet to to let his waistband go he hits him a bunch of times and then and only then does he does he feel a wall st then felt the weapon and then into the ground so was a completely different story which is which is why i found it i think i need to mention the high crime area because i judge he made history his r based on the people versus jackson case where police come up upon an individual who's acting bizarrely and they command him to put his hands on the car and he puts his hands on the car takes him off the sands in the car takes a mop and h by the light upon people versus jackson nonetheless because he said that he believes judge judy believed that the officer because of mr webb's actions in running toward the officer was justified and in a further investigation i've addressed that the judge davies ruling regarding mr rabbit running toward the officer in we respectfully contend that is not a bizarre action bet is things judge judy ruled that also hear birds feeling that mr webb might be in possession of a weapon whereas it's merely a hunch we think that part of the ruling is right on the money it was merely a hunch and that did not that hodge did not rise to the level of probable cause to support the arrest which is what we contend happened in the arrest is really defined as that point in time which you are no longer free to go and i think the state of it conceded that the seizure of mr webster person occurred once the officer placed his hands on mr webb shoulders and brought him down to the ground he was undeniably seized and i don't even think that's contested we believe batson arrest and we believe that that arrest was not support rudd should have been able to introduce evidence of the affair investigation itself but in this case not only was he not allowed to do that he was not allowed to impeach foster here but it's with prior inconsistent statements with respect to officer they were inconsistent statements from foster hubert's trial testimony regarding the conditions under which mr webb made these three alleged  statements this was a big if you just look at the jury's notes back and forth with a court they were having hard time with this case they twice sent notes to the court that they were deadlocked that indicates by any any examination that they were having a back with a verdict of guilty and during selection it was made clear some of these jurors had had they were told it would take a week some of them had x rays lined up and out of town flights and we believe this this was very prejudicial to the defendant he should have at least been able to confront officer schubert's with prior inconsistent testimony given at the airport hearing with respect to the timing of these defendants three alleged statements and whether they were made during that was with just did it so what's wrong with it well nothing better for nothing i don't think that that in itself is inherently unfair but then when the officer gets up there it is allowed to testify that he only st found out mr webb was asking to see a doctor after mr webb had given these three statements and he was off in a lock up when he testified at the ever hearing that mr wright made three statements between one hundred and thirty in three thirty in the morning but he was confronted with it with other statements that mr webb asked to see a doctor during processing processing occurred before the statements ever ever happened and why is it unfair because if the the jury was given instruction to go back and determine whether or not the states were even made and if you truly were made what do we do you give them and you should consider all of the circumstances in our view they were not allowed to hear all of the circumstances because the said you can't go there and it was a prior inconsistent statement and so they the jury should have been allowed to hear that because it went to whether which the credibility of the statements thank you very much  good afternoon honors the officer in this case conducted a proper cherry stop based upon his experience and the defendant's unusual conduct in this case where the defendant was running towards officer he was or at that's unusual about running and when th this case and think of it as innocent conduct the officer in this case based upon his experience which he testified to at the hearing was that humor took this contact and he had seen  constituted flight because that would be disingenuous on my part when someone police officers come and tell someone to disperse and they run that's not fly in in the rattle sets there was there sure enough right eye on the for ten years here been working in this district for five years and during that time he had many previous gun and drug arrests at the severely intersection so whether they have to do with this individual this that has to respectfully request that the defendant's conviction be a front in this case  is found that it was between two and eight seconds between the time hubert's st saw the graphic to the time he took him down to the ground so i just want to correct that and one thing that i didn't address and should have is there's another reason why in addition to this one where it was a police order mr rather baited when he was running there is a strong reason why people don't want to have interactions with police and that's why i wanted to cite to horton i with the labor that point i know the court well knows that point and i think that that may also have been at play here and maybe rightly so for mr webb because of what what happened to him  just very quickly with respect to the cell got the case gets completely in the opposite in this case because in that case there was evidence at the motion that it was a high crime area we didn't have that at the motion and i don't think the court should credit the later trial testimony given ostrich hubert's complete reversal of testimony and his massive impeachment with what was in the scripts reports and what he came up with that the motion and then when he came up with a trial i don't think his credibility is such that it merits bra that was a prior inconsistent statement if if the officer had testified him if we'd been able to ask that question did you make an offer proof i didn't try the case and i don't believe in the record that there was an