it was not even close to what i thought all right under the want to supreme court rule three fifty two b each side has twenty minutes for the main argument the opponent has ten minutes for but all we need change that if you have a lot of questions or if the questions are the comments become repetitive please remember to speak loudly our microphones do not really employ five very well these simply are here to record what's being said also please understand we have read the briefs and definitely with the facts of the case so devote your time to the strongest arguments i still floating out there in one of the campaign say directly decided the issues raised an issue to rethink it so in this case the state failed to present sufficient evidence for getting the nature to the extent of the wounds to y cassidy movies where he used to get shot in the shoulder and say oh it's just a scratch but that's fiction let's talk about real life sure in real life the state has the burden of proving pianta reasonable doubt based on evidence presented in the indeterminate size but the jury was never given an opportunity to view was simply insufficient to prove great bodily harm and they said that we are asking this court to rebut for reset say a merged out of a tough murder including the personal destruction of fire lead to these rash decision making and that they have a greater potential for rehabilitation so basically the onus only cus to shit and the street court cases rehabilitate potential should be one of the part about considerations in fashion trucks excuse me assure you agree they have if we assuming we find that we can't get around by your side of the great bodily harm market sure that the people prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was great harm based on the standard of review where the defendants challenge the ship's efficiency of the evidence the standard is when considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the people whether a rational trier of fact fixed it and fired a couple more shots so it's so if he did five if he shot if he successfully got off a couple more rounds after this alleged jamming incident that when the court  the camera but for this jim it could have been worse the court isn't correct isn't it because if there was a gym it was only momentarily and this defendant more rounds had his gun not jammed and even standing over the victim where he was going to been a very different situation he could have shot him several more times but for the country and he retreated and then shot two more before fleeing the scene and the court recognized the seriousness of this offense where the defendant boarded this public place bus and put everyone in danger that day the passengers of the bus driver and the defendant complete disregard for the safety of of those passengers the west for years and you know this is a troubling issue for society and here we have a fifteen year old who got what fifty years for an injury then i mean i mean we don't want fifteen year old shooting guns on buses we don't want anybody should have done some busses but one of the problems i've got here is we've got this automatic twenty five year at and it took away the judge's discretion to you know the judge has started thirty one go up from there and even a thirty one here ticking away basically this entire person's life i mean we in his late forty's when he was released even if we go to thirty want isn't that enough punishment don't they stand for a greater proposition that the highest court in the country is telling us staff locking up fourteen year old something we have with the twelve year olds in wisconsin it was in the news last week you know we're going to tr and it may be a trend that the court is recognizing to put out as being given some consideration for their age like you sad the standard of review in this case is really because we need to look at the abuse of discretion of the trial court regardless right now because what we have to look at whether the court disagrees with the trial court sentence and whether the backers would weigh differently whether you would have given more attention to the a mansion in every case  cleared more asking you a hypothetical philosophical basis because what you just said would reply in every case you know the terms of the response if it's within the sentencing range you know basically we can always