taking place in a parking lot an apartment complex for both the defendants present and if a friend of the defendant lived the testimony of the two actually lived on the same floor on the same side of the hallway so apparently only  doors away from each other the party itself was in a parking lot of the apartment complex beyond that geographically to set out right the record doesn't provide any of that but it was in the parking lot and it was about where the brass knuckles were taken in the parking lot he was in my understanding as he was in the parking lot i guess he had returned to the party according to his own testimony at the time the police approached him and found the brass knuckles and they were all there celebrating his twenty first birthday so he was surrounded by his closest friends as a family i don't know there isn't anything about his parents being there question that was asked but he was really surrounded by people that knew anything about other adults like the children's parents being there  parents the correct if he knew the parents that he certainly could have taken the children it was ten thirty at night he characterized them as children running around outside an apartment complex or town the holes of this apartment complex certainly the most proven option if he knew the parents was to take the children to the parents and explain to them his concerns given that he may not have known that though the point is he was surrounded at a party by people that he knew clearly one of these adults could have taken these brass knuckles rather than defend him personally taking them so he had other options this was not his sole option and given that that's not in the record right after i was correct he did not but as you pointed out also hugh did not point out that he did not have any other options the evidence to show that all of these people were at this party for him he didn't take it to anybody else he put them in his pocket and he returned to the party given that there were other options just by the mere fact that he was surrounded by these other adults certainly there had to be a trash can there were options available but even if you find that his initial taking might have been necessary at that moment as the trial court found his continued possession was certainly not justified after taking it he estimated there was a ten minute time between when he took the initial the weapons  police searched them in that ten minutes time he said that when he saw the children he was headed to his presence apartment to use the restroom certainly you could drop them off and there securely where nobody else could get them that's an option his own testimony he testified against the friend lives same floor same building he certainly could have dropped them off in there but telling is the fact that he felt such an urgent need that his only option was to knowingly commit a felony to get these this dangerous weapon away from these children and yet he never told the children why he took them when he was asked did you explain to them now i never said a word you just willingly committed a felony because you felt this was so urgent and yet you offered no explanation when the police searched and arrested him they may not have asked and it is an assumption on my part but i think i would have said this was the situation i found it to be an exit situation and i took these weapons from the small children take them from the children assuming the children are going to be the ones to go throw them in the trash can somebody had to take them temporarily and again i think that's where the trial court said we don't necessarily i honestly have a problem in the shell taking but having taken them he could have thrown them in a trash can which would not have put any responsibility or created any offense on anybody else or he also could have asked another adult to properly dispose of them somebody has to touch them at some point to dispose of them but in that ten minutes time he did this he kept them beyond that for a substantial enough time for him to return to a party and his continued possession was not justified and it is a trial first just possibility to determine as a matter of law if you have supported your defense theory with the proper amount of evidence he had to show that this was his sole option as a matter of law to get the defense of necessity you have to show this was his sole option and that he did it to a void and imminent harm he can see if there was no imminent harm the kids were not fighting they were not threatening to hurt each other they were not threatening to hurt anybody else they were flying when he called them over he said they were smiling there was no imminent danger or imminent harm but his conduct avoided so he can't meet that far as a matter of law if these children would identify they have not they were not and the age was not specifically identified he simply carry them as children or at one point even also as a as a you his sole option and considering the evidence that was there figure out a party they're happier in an apartment complex you have access to your cousin's apartment and your friend's apartment there is a trash can there is some place to safely dispose of tho and they weren't fighting and they weren't threatening to hurt anybody else including each other counsel defense counsel argue and his closing argument once he can see that there was no injury that was threatened and then you basically summarize and said this was a young man who had given his previous convictions in criminal instances of his i think hard to believe yes it would it would be different because i think there's the argument there is it is imminent you have a loaded gun and you have children but excuse me for my entrance here i've never seen brass knuckles i can't say i have personally seen them but my understanding is there are four holes and basically it is a piece of metal approximately like this before holes that you could slide your finger at and then if you would hit somebody with that you have this metal part rather than your it would hit them and hurt them and i can so that it's ok that they're dangerous enough so they're lacking some level of four holes that it's not a loaded gun so i don't think again i think that's a difference where you come into this imminent harm a loaded gun clearly th does not it does make them per se weapons but it does not automatically mean that anybody in possession has the right to a necessity defense based on their possession i'm not you wasn't possibly right to take it away from children that's not the argument that i'm making but i'm saying it's beyond that initial taking there were one opportunities to dispose of them were nobody else got trouble occluding himself you know apartments have and then there's also again this need for him is contact to have prevented an imminent harm and again he concedes there was no harm defense counsel and see if there was no harm today there was no harm that