we have to go fact and look at what the supreme court said i this device or something that would be comparable to well i think the a lot that famine has been for one time because you don't use excessive force i don't think it makes a great deal of difference what kind of weapon or device you use here obviously the device can burn every officer testified said yes contact skin can burn it's it's not one to the courts have said you don't have to have a trial one basically we don't have to shoot somebody first to know that a pistol is is there's only force you don't have to have a case you didn't have the meyers case which the other side talks about which pointed out that it was basically close to the limits to use of what they call flash bang or diversionary device certainly and they actually show you did have somebody you love violent history known to be in there in the house that after i read plaintiff's reply brethen and my recollection of preparing for this case because i don't have a strong come along back and i went and did some research on the same question that you just pose will i if there is a suspect in there but you're if you're just going in for property like you think there's an armed guy in there is there any prohibition going in there is there any reason you need to expand a search warrant there is no law that i could find that would provide that and of course it makes no sense law enforcement wouldn't be able to do its job if that were the case they were going in after a property that one of the pieces of property was a three fifty seven magnum that had been stolen and the officers knew that that was a possibility in there knew there were potential criminal people in there whether they were robbery suspects or not and there was every reason to believe that a diversionary device would be a reasonable thing to do when they go in to secure the premises in order to obtain the jewelry and they're on the other hand the plaintiff's position is that it might be even if it were appropriate to use  device the manner in which it was used here we don't know where it's going we have the possibility of it really essentially being thrown in and coming into contact with people that the officer should have known that would be excessive force and grenades can go pregnant and somebody in the room might be but be injured or i mean if there is a spouse who argues a bit of common sense or you've got an explosive device and that's what's the law enforcement folks on inherent features about it that any reasonable force officer would have known at the time should not be used except in so very high risk situations with you could justify the risk of injury to others i think you're again melding the ta and i believe that was the baker case there were children there were children in the house and they found all that was a close call but that it was not a clearly established right that one cannot use such a diversionary device even though they were mind on the wall and that was when they planned that was their intent to throw it up against the wall or place it up against the rock to avoid hitting people that's right in the house right but it was a reasonable way to minimize ten seconds i think the bigger case i believe the children were going to be in another room there is no evidence the thing was stolen gun was on the premises so i think counselor spoke for itself i disagree as to her factual renditions that's what makes this by consensus they all had input they discussed the use of the flash bang in fact just a question for the city and mr skinner are probably equal in position and apparently mr carr should have a call on this too i think