decide to challenge in a legal aspect of the district court's factual determination such as whether the district court properly assessed the incontrovertibly uncontrovertible record evidence and  challenge it because we feel that it was blatantly in the monstrously false factual determination about the underlying court and also the record is only supported by the minutes based on the officer in the eye witnesses the can't that were not contradicted by any competent proof from the plaintiff whatsoever and then to the extent that there were disputes of facts it's our position that we challenge the factual determination and or findings of the district court as to number one whether burnt my client officer had an object believe reasonable suspicion that michael edwards the deceased was one dylan tarmon who who was a known to have assaulted an officer in this high crime area and burns had gone to a meeting prior to going out they had shown a photograph of him and it's very you can see on page twelve of our plays that it's very similar to what he looked like and then whether or not edwards fled when burns attempted to place him in the vehicle and whether edwards kate deputy patty which was another officer so we feel i'm going to go through the facts real quick to get to our point that out as does all that matter i mean isn't the allegation of of excessive force here the the alleged slamming of the edwards to the ground to the concrete which  caused his head injury and his death that the slamming of the concrete to the concrete was the excessive force and all this other stuff about whether he escaped and whether you kicked him and everything else that's kind of beside the point isn't oh but you're right it's for us ultimately and i can deal with it and work backwards if you wish well ok what does all that matter i mean that's they they don't need that they're not seeking damages for anything else  other than what other than the excessive force of being slammed to the concrete yeah slamming it is a do a word that was used to describe and then use that they say well that's what they claim you say they got tangled up and they fell and i mean it sounds like a classic issue of fact that's that's where you want to jump that's why that's where water that's where you want to jump to and this is well what about to say so i want i want you to tell me why it's not ok because you have an gets the gun they find in the fight they get into the car to put him in and he takes off now here's how you know i know all that stuff and i can i can see it all that and then he runs away and he catches up with them and they say he slammed on the co ok that's your natural ok slamming course you slave it's a street fight but when he slammed him if you look at what the three witnesses said he aren't wender stand there but is really clearly explained in the district court decision the woman who was a witness to some of it from a distance didn't say that he broke away and tried to run again she said they were holden him he kicked the other officer or kicked at the other officer and it looked like their legs got time gold fail that's very different from your argument that if that the video blyton plea contradicts the position of the plaintiff here because there were two attempts to escape i'm struggling with with the fact that it seems that a coworker this is simply a dispute of fact you have an explanation from officer barnes the plaintiff's as the autopsy report that says it was a homicide that he could not have just fallen that he unless he fell off a ladder that because it broke completely cracked his in the back that's a dispute of material fact and as to the key legal issue of excessive force and that is the definition of no jurisdiction for our court that's since you say that we're not listening let me ask you this question with what you're trying to tell us what is the issue that you say we need to the we come forward with proof we've done our part and i witness who said raised ok look like like your family looks like something you do school to keep a kid from doing that and other officers say that we've come forward with our proof the issue for your determination is what proof have they come forward to contradict sighing what the evidence showed in santa for and it was not a slam the explanation of the district court was that what occurred in say under for was that sort of fussing back and forth and then the officer doing a motion day on to the ground but the key to all of this is that our discussion here is a batter dispute of what actually occurred when you come before us it is the decisions on facts the finding of fact by the district court below that governs you must no no you disagree and then the then it's the trials held and the dispute is if the dispute is resolved but right now what you have on the record is a twenty five or thirty page long opinion in which the district court made findings of fact and those who govern this case if you dispute the district court's findings of fat than we don't have jurisdiction to hear it all we can decide is isolated and clearly legal questions think you don't have time to say that's a fine jury argument now your question here is whether there is legal question not dependent upon a determination of fact and i'm not saying ok there are no facts that the judge came up with she went into speculation what is what about this she didn't say specs and this record to the speed that this guy was taken and slammed on his head to the right there's no proof of that by three people ok there's three people this that that's not the way it happened there's nothing for us to a fact find a jury decides whether that was force sufficient and necessary on the circumstances of that case because i think that the what the court said was that there is an issue material small children st of all your honors the st point of argument is that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case as the courts have  responses from the defendant in this case the defendants in all of their brief we can t and only challenge the facts that the district court found which limits the the jurisdiction issue moot as it relates to this court the defendants in this case want to suggest that there is no facts that support that mr edwards was slammed to the ground and i just want to haue a lot of few of those points mr burns jerry burns said us landing to the ground he was actually asked the question and it's in the audio did you slam him or dropping out and he said ah so i am here it's also in the exhibit and there are then the audio recordings just for your honour's the audio recordings overlap their body cam and there are some crews or video going at the same time so you'll hear multiple recordings from different avenues what we have in this case is this actual nd where mr edwards was slam the ground is not captured on video all we hear is mr edwards lying on the ground dying from a multiple skull fractures were he was slammed to the ground the deputies say he did not intend to him on the ground that it was just a reaction that is not in the record that i'm aware and as a matter of fact the officers the way this this folds out just for your honor when you're reviewing this is  burned st encountered mr edwards and his friends mr hickam and as mr burris is on the ground with mr edwards pinned him to ground an officer michael bennett shows up you'll see some cruiser video from officer bennett then it's the officer that then doesn't that he goes over to mr burns while he's on the ground with mr edwards he he goes to see mr hickam who is up by the cruiser and then officer paddy a rabs on the scene officer paddy and mr while he's struggling on these audio recordings and why are you doing this you're going to kill me call nine hundred and eleven he's asking for help and this is for patti showed up on patti shows up i think there are some remarks from  got tangled officer burns an officer paddy who was present also their testimony conflicts with one another one says it was kind of a donkey kick the other one say as well he kicked with the drop foot and then his foot hit the ground and didn't know if it left the ground so it is our position respectfully that these are facts that a jury must decide and these facts of that was multiple days mr burns is giving a statement to the detective these were relayed to the medical examiner the detective went to the forensic medical examiner's office and said this is what happened based on his conversation with officer burns and she's latin now could happen that way or it would have been the autopsy report would read accident she cites that in that affidavit is in the record also that same theory was given could have happened that way this was a forceful slam to the ground we're asking that this court polled d the ruling district judge graves that this this court lacks we asked that this court dismissed this petition for lack of jurisdiction to your honor's court i'll answer any questions that the court may have i have not yet we have no thank you but got two minutes reb submissive he was not being compliant he was fine officers and at some point plan to fast own up to his own wrongdoing age which were everything i've told you down and said that in the record