that particular conduct occurred, we may review whether the facts assumed by the district court constituted excessive force). 8 . The Estate points to the opinions of some lay witnesses that Waterman's vehicle did not appear to be a threat to the officers ahead and to expert testimony that the officers’ use of deadly force was unreasonable. Neither precludes Appellants' entitlement to summary judgment. Even ignoring the conclusory nature of the lay opinions, those opinions do not create a genuine issue. of fact because the witnesses were unaware of tire fact most critical to the probable cause analysis: that Waterman had reportedly attempted to use his vehicle as a weapon in order to avoid being captured only minutes before entering the toll plaza. See Pace, 283 F.3d at 1280 & n. 11 (<HOLDING>). Nor is summary judgment precluded by the
holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible holding that lay witness opinion that approaching vehicle did not appear to be a threat to any officer on the scene did not warrant denial of summary judgment because the witness was not aware of the events that preceded the shooting that gave the officers reason to believe that suspect would attempt to assault them internal quotation marks omitted holding that evidence of a threat to a witness by the defendant is relevant as showing an attempt to prevent a witness from testifying and avoid punishment for the crime holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary holding that the failure of a witness to appear in response to a subpoena was an indirect contempt since the court did not witness all of the essential elements of the misconduct