you're lucky it didn't get worse pushing me around again like that and see what happens you ain't tough and finally he said i would beat your ass if you work out i can't wait for you to retire the only thing the saved you w that these are the statements made to officer happening on the back of a squad car are nothing more than generalized drives that threaten a public official statute requires that when the statements are made to a police officer that these statements contain argument here look two parts in the first issue saying that it no rational jury could have found this on the tube and proved beyond reasonable doubt and in the second part of the argument is that the jury was never instructed that this was an element  ip i would've been cut off but every day you have to cross reference your cases here you have to cross reference the information with the i got you have to present the proper issues to the jury and here the jury was never given that instruction as argued in second issue and it still had to find several occasions before he simply would not have taken this threat seriously and therefore is our conviction should be reversed because there's insufficient evidence for any rational trier of fact  mr warrington made a threat to this police officer attorney just briefly for the second issue as we discussed previously that the jury was not instructed on this element that it the jury must find specific  have a unique threat rather than a generalized threat with never given that instruction and never made any final regarding that and furthermore the the the instructions regarding the reasonable apprehension of bodily harm not constitute a criminal act on the go and then he doesn't necessarily say i know where you live i'm coming to your house i'm going to take here i think when you're looking to it it's reason it's relatively difficult because we're deal works you know we're dealing with speech how far does it go what i think this court should look at as whether those specific facts and include two things a specific act and a temporal requirement here he does not state any specific acts i mean that causes he get as an on going to beach or ass i really don't know what that means other than you know maybe he's going to challenge him to go fight on some future occasion he doesn't say like some of the other cases of dealt with these type of threats and hail as a perfect example inhale the defendant said i know where you live as soon as i get out of jail i'm going to co i believe you are either there is are county specific i think that's a problem with that county that's not what we have here what we have here is the court imposing costs and telling the court you know impose costs or goes like to say it is what i can't do anything other than what we have but the the point i think that we learn from hail is that you don't have to put that in the charge is necessarily that it's within the first issue and second issue because what it comes to use were these threats specific enough to warrant a finding even if the jury were properly instructed  and from executing his threat so that is a specific threat that goes right to the actual issue and there when you back it up with all these other additional threats that he is going to in