jury instruction the instruction states that a person who is not initially provoked the use of force against themself as no duty to escape danger before responding with force against the aggressor now the stand the standard for it your instruction  understood that neither my client nor any of his friends did anything to provoke calderon into point over his car i in fact again as was driving while drunk actually testified that they didn't do anything but the facts show that  evidence is very close on the issue of whether or not i'm strict as i acted reasonably in response on that as i stated before if there's significant evidence that helen was the aggressor they act in extremely threatening manner it specially considering to be given with the self defense instruction and the self defense instruction reads that if you have a reasonable belief a very bodily harm or reasonable belief that your life is in danger you can respond with force here i don't think you can divorce sort of  that because that this is so close on the issue of whether my client acted reasonably in that scenario i think that this i think that the jury instruction error is particularly a judicial as i stated if that if the jurors had the trial so it is through that lens with which the are you must be addressed but turning to the substance of the argument believe just farmer hit the nail on the head when he has doesn't the initial aggressor instruction contemplate the use of force and in this case defendant can point to nothing more than quote aggressive walking or the most when this is he said he thought he was going to do something what that something is isn't borne out by the record we have defendant's own testimony in this case where he said he observed the victim get out of the car and within seconds fired off three to four shots now defendant testified that well he was a rival gang member in my part of the town in private gang territory it's clearly is an aggressive behavior there's no boundaries isn't in fact a death threat directed at one person is a born out by the record not the people defendant was with that morning testified we saw two sixes driving around the neighborhood and based on that information the fender went to a fellow sit beside his gang member he discussed the lack of mutual combat the lack of aggression the lack of anything which be construed as the use of force against the defendant on that is essential the dumb luck cases are first about defendant doesn't actually speak to the non initial force not whether he had a duty to escape for using that force that logic of a political here there is no question that the jury would have thought well had the defendant run away maybe we would have to worry about this that examinations all of the testimony that was listed all trooped once the one point defendant put forth a self defense claim and said i was afraid i was sort of afraid to reach into a pocket pulled out a gun and shot three to four times before the victim got within four feet of him that the disparity in size disparity in weight is immaterial the defendant had the great equalizer which was a loaded weapon which prevented the victim from getting any closer to him and based upon those facts cannot be said that the circuit court of used its discretion some of the older case was before the current form of this instruction talks about the nine initial aggressor and and and in language that says of the phone and who was a defendant who was buy another the hughes miller case which precipitated the issuance of this instruction must be noted that the i p i chose not to use that language when you are discussing cases for from a much different time with the use of the term assault at different connotation in this case the i p i specifically contemplates the use of force and again it says a person who is not provoked the use of force against himself there is no reference to a person who has been assaulted a person who has been approached in a threatening manner a person who walks up to you on the street and may or may not if they say disciples kill or none of those fall within the parameters of this where it says the use of force against himself and that's where this case turns because there was  defendant because he cannot point to anything in the record to support his use of force which is why the jury rejected his claim self defense jury didn't get the benefit of instruction self defense the jury came back with a second degree murder trial murder conviction then straight into unreason police force defendant's argument but ask this court to assume that the only thing that was unreasonable about shooting an unarmed man from four to six feet a few seconds after seeing him exit a car is that the this case and even under the clean air standard as i explained at the issue the issue here is extremely closely balanced specially concerning fact the jury found second degree acquitted in the first degree murder here it's clear that the the multiple reasons why but he didn't it wasn't just the fact that he was talking with the initial aggressor it was the fact that he drove out the fact that he had previously from them in the past spotted him on the street pulled a breath occur and then came out of the car had him i think it's also driver you know you know i have to kill you so there's that mean that every time somebody says that you should shoot of course not i think i think that the only issue in this issue in this case is whether whether there was air to give the not initial aggressor instruction and here i especially considering the facts proceeding what happened when he pulled over the car and the history of threats against my client i think that taking all that into account into a context of the case i think that that shows that mr calderon was the aggressor i'm certainly not excusing that kind of people i mean and you know the same thing applies you know in games sometimes people get out of characters in gangs and scream and yell at other people they don't always kill you know they don't honor that only issue in this case is whether it was eric to give the jury instruction here so i understand to the cell so that instruction should be given in every cases that  should be given in cases where there is some evidence to support the fact that the shooter or that the person who responded to force is not the initial aggressor as trivia for the jury to decide with with the knowledge of that fact whether or not the context whether or not the  alone can be and can make a summer initial aggressor i think you have to look at what words are being said in the context of the news that i think i should kill you i think i should tell you i don't know if that's really a