she answered the cell and the video evidence shows she walk briskly past all the cells keeping her eyes straight forward such that the jury could reasonably infer she failed to walk in any cell that she was pass and at some point it appears like she may be turning her head do you dispute that i dispute that there i agree that the video was innocent and using a clearly established use that she never turned her head at all i think a jury coming her watching that video that she did not turn her head to the video the pets are walking straight ahead subject to excessive risk in their cells she knew that in a speech as general harm versus a civic type of harm you agree with that the risk of general harm versus the risk of specific harm to an individual i think the distinction of your figure identifying a rider is back there is a generalized risk of harm to inmates in a correctional facility correctional facilities are places where where violence occurs and corrections officers have been helpless possible for preventing all violence that occurs in a corrections  there is an excessive there is a heightened risk of our innate in their ses and that's particularly true at the northern new hampshire correction facility because in the current area jury if you get that far because the inmates have covered this up pretty well and if she had just looked which is what you're saying she should have i still can't figure out from this record what she would have seen those facts a jury could infer that if she had offered to look in the south she would have seen jonathan late there whom she knew and she would have realized that he didn't belong before you want to disprove the issue of whether she would have seen him i take it relates to causation rather than her state of mind it got so ok so with respect to state of mind yes when you say that she but the evidence also showed what you see it shows here that in this particular instance doing the rounds the video shows what it shows we don't suffice to show that she had a couple state of mind it i'm not saying that there has to give more it's not purely the corrections officer is walking straight ahead walking straight ahead not looking into the cells i think that's an intentional choice given that she whips through this route forty seven seconds that's an intentional choice and given that the undisputed evidence was everything was all clear in the present and that was no existence the record does not reflect that the plaintiff housing bottom was known for violence the record does not reflect that the inmates who attacked the plaintiff were known for violence it doesn't reflect that the plaintiff was a vulnerable individual or ever reported that he was a risk so just simply an officer knowing that around a part of that is looking into cells that's not a mental state akin to criminal practice just so we get the government has assumed th she is deliberately indifferent to correct there needs to be something more and the case all reflects that there are prison procedures set up sometimes officers aren't operating with optimal attentiveness but unless there is yeah she would be saying what's your best case for suggesting that even in that situation there's no love so she so she made a choice to communicate i don't care and i'm not going to do this round but there are there is a case deliberately indifferent to this is a medium security prison there's counts happening there's grounds happening there's no there's not a record here where this was a unit where people were being assaulted left and right and left in their cell just mean them to jail could have a ever hear of the nature of the security issue that there is which is there's still hopping which sometimes is dangerous it's can be dangerous to be in a cell but there's nothing more than that general risk and the warden says my policy is because i don't care what's going on the cells and no one will look at oh yeah no i think that that is problematic because that's it and if that's problematic why is it problematic for an officer to walkthrough putting two around making it clear that she was deliberately indifferent to what's going on  through she didn't around she was present in that night you just contesting whether she was really looking or not so i that's why start with the bottle that it's just a matter of does this record show enough about her state of mind not looking into this else so which way does it does that help your case or does that help the that's more problematic and in that context she's say it was my habit not to look into the cells i was learning from experience it slows me down there's almost never anything to see those that help you or does that i think he was training in on was a change in her marriage is that really what he was training on i'm asking you to answer the question i think i do believe it's immaterial or alternatively that it would help the defense because it would it would indicate that she the fact that she hadn't done this in the past the crime your hypothetical because there's not much to see goes to her state of mind which is not being acting a criminal recklessness conclude thank you guard to do or appropriate thing but whether it's a constitutional violation the idea isn't to take a single round in a particular day the time of the round even if she was completely indifferent to it on that day that doesn't show security prison didn't have a huge street that kind of violence specific incidents of violence essentially she's not she's that indifferently if it was that intentionally in different to something that had never prior bands and he also mentioned two third thing i want to know if there's a factual dispute that in fact many of the end mates were out in the yard and not within their and you you agree that it was me and that there was an in history i agree that were vet it was a medium security prison i don't agree that there was no history of violence here and i don't agree that there was no i