argument that he was cong that he was engaging with the police in conversation that he was not imagine that until the police barged into the bedroom he was  officers come to it it was house but he says he's gauging these conversations he's telling somebody hey i like being on the phone with the guy he's asking to in is about officer papeete the sighting he's going to provide cover right there's he's this for purposes of our analysis we take it is a given that he went in there thinking that right accepted bit the officer we're on the scene for two hours or less it's accepted for purposes of discussion that he was engaging in dialogue with the police even if he was saying i'm not going to go although i have a question about that and  it's accepted that he was attacking them with this one poker he was using it to work them off if it's accepted that there was no means for him to escape and i believe that that's accepted that if if the distinction you're making is because of the ny guys should go down with officer pappy how come how come you know they they can all be represented by one attorney i don't want to put in awkward spot again it's a right no that's fine but that doesn't that raise a significant question is that can that can mean all kinds of things if it's if it isn't the case that he's just trying to stop them from taken into custody how can you get to lethal lethal force being officers understood what they did with ed understanding and wrote the state of parole was at that time to work them that what they were doing was clearly wrong part but did something change he's defending himself he's no threat of being off an tried so you are disputing the facts no because i don't see i don't see you can have it both ways either he's using that poker defensively and they're not under threat they just have to back off where he's attacking and they're under threat those are you know certainly there could be you could say it's ambiguous in which case i guess you'd have to concede there's a dispute but for purposes of analysis now if you're twenty hindsight but we do require their actions to be reasonable right yes officer's actions under all of the circumstances right all the circumstances if if we have to take all the circumstances into account is appear a material difference between somebody screaming and coming at you with a knife who if you leave them alone in the room actually doesn't have a means of escape she and somebody who's in a bedroom and set and with no means of escape saying leave  lead up to other words that the plaintiffs argument here is they created the police created the circumstances they came with what in effect was a swat team to talk to a guy  it's not charged with any crime he's not doing anything illegal he's not acting in a way when he said his own home that prompts anybody concerned for their safety he says he is effectively a guy minding his own business the police come in he tells them i don't want to go with you and they do things which in the end read them to shoot them that's the point of subversion is he is it your position that none of the stuff that leads up to they they have no other options at that point the police have no option except to break the door down all of them in a row tumbling into the room they have options b a he's got some poker in there as it turns out but as far as the police knew they'd all been told there were no weapons in that house right correct ok so there they assume that it will be assumed so right so be assumed there were no weapons they were told there were no weapons that brings us back to the question of other than the fact that they've got a warrant that they want to affect what creates what create any type pressure for why why do they have to choose to press the confrontation that's the that seems to be work was an important factor to the district court and i'd be has to be something that you can look at it and frame a question in a fact specific way and then make a statement about reasonableness right so officers on the scene for less than two hours  escape up until they break into the room there are apparently other options he could be pursued those are all things that i thought the district where it had headed one way or another said and yet we're at a point in the room where you're saying they had to shoot announce and by the way they knew he might be coming out brian williams has three conversations with three people in our family members his mom are his father goes in there twice right and his wife barricade the house and if the guy has you know shut off his electricity shut off his water if it takes a week he's got food storage you gotta wait a week you can never to effect a one no no i'm not saying  how long do you think they've got away the gauge in dialogue with them he says unlike some of the big they say over this period of two hours they keep trying to persuade multiple different ways come on out mr williams and he won't do it that and run with it you have to as an officer on the scene go with what you're seeing so what are they seeing this time he's talking to them he's not refusing to talk they enter wrong he's speaking with them he same to three different people they all come our but i don't want to go with you police officers i want to go to my mother's but maybe he'll come out he's making those representations he has cut off communication so you can ignore that and say well i bo so even though they've got the medical professionals representation that this person is dangerous you're saying his behavior on the scene they should  dangerous that's the escalation comes when they bust in the house without knocking without announcing taken by surprise for this mentally ill man into a position where he has no idea that there are police storming his house while he's actively most plainly incompetent government official in the execution of their right it's very heavily thought that the supreme court has said deliberately tilted toward the defendant so if it comes down to just tiny as to the entry into the house how can we say there's between two hours and three hours or two hours and four hours three hours maybe you could go in for our stefano you could go in two hours plainly and copy how hard it is can only look at the facts of each individual piece is it objective reasonable this is this is a question of war you seem to be saying hey this is a question of back whether it was reasonable to go in that when i was in the circumstance you don't want to talk to me saying in fact i like talking about this particular officer because he's not in any nobody's in any thread he's not using threatening communication he's not suggesting that he might harm himself he's not saying what hurt harm anybody  nobody there's no case is this child welfare workers can't sell children into slavery but that doesn't mean that we were caught and they could say he wasn't clearly established i mean there are things facts circumstances which you can look at it's a remark that behavior