reason to believe that it is a real threat as this court required and a rosko some to ya years ago  have to do something to determine whether or not there is an objective basis for believing that this threat is reasonable you have to do something like quite well you typically in these cases is the one who committed that crime that's that's no requirement for full fledged investigation at that point is there well it depends on what the circumstances are this court has held that where for example you have obviously has a grudge or a victim under other circumstances where it's unclear whether or not there is not a crime committed but there has to be an investigation here we have a ninety eight pound wheelchair aggressive he's never threaten anybody's never hurt anybody he's never done anything except plate poker and all of the sudden this poker dealer for reasons that are difficult to understand whether it was preexisting grudge against koreans whether it was a misunderstanding a case based on the fact that mr hardly speaks english at all whether that was a combination of factors claims  your argument that it has to be a right present ability to carry it out i don't think that it has to be right now but it has to be it has to be i think that is a requirement but i don't think i starting points the point i'm really arguing now what is one of the thirteen points are you arguing i'm arguing the jury instruction points the jury instruction points the court incorrect simply incorrect i'm also think why do you question the instruction have to answer the second part of the question well what i proposed and this is the question that actually is more important than how you interpret for twenty two and terrorist threats in general and how that relates to the first ame establish probable cause police are required to reasonably investigate and are charged with knowing what they should have discovered before finding probable cause it is not reasonable chorused someone based soley on allegations of an individual who is known to the place to bear a grudge against the suspect an officer may not justify his contract based on conformity with department policy or practice is that a fair a to practice the cost of the policy of the entity and i asked for an instruction assessed and but that's not a defense that doesn't make it reasonable which is absolutely correctly the law during every hair is that you know i asked for instructions is when i go out there a situation like this where the question is whether or not any reasonable person would take this allege and threat to be a real threat and this isn't a case where you can say you know we've gone too far here we're all in people off to jail for what may be intemperate remarks or more likely exaggerated misunderstandings lisette and then we get to the core of this case that really troubled me which was the closing argument of the fence more who started talking about all these other incidents and implying that you have to take every single possible threat him seriously and lock people up palm off to jail you don't think we should take every possible threat seriously you can't you can't other when she said she took it seriously and she was frightened why should we disregard that well you didn't ask the poker dealer took it seriously and was frightened that doesn't make it a crime and everybody should know that that evidence that's what i'm arguing the impropriety of of the argument that the defense lawyer made bringing in all these other legends and so we're not on the record to really inflame the jury and to  can't go to the jury and ask the jury those questions i'm sitting there and i know i know what when i see it and these arguments were totally out of the health i have never ever in my career as a lawyer seen off to have believed that there was a fair probability that a public offense i e making terrorist threats was committed that instruction more than covered all the bases that mr mann is talking about he could have considered  actually made by citizen and i would be interested to hear from both of you with regard to whether or not that makes a difference is there some sort of mandatory statutory duty that the officer take the person into custody once the dealer mr mann has limited this issue to the judge just charge on proximate cause now you heard him you heard his argument now he is complaining that the charge that he requested was not covered in the charge given to the jury how do you answer his argument that you have a responsibility be that the the judge's charge was bright enough to cover every possible concept that should have been considered i think was broad enough to cover all the evidence that the attorney in closing arguments refer to facts of common knowledge and make try illustrations from well known facts and that's exactly what counsel did in this case he brought to the attention of the jury the fact that in our to be taken seriously you can't ignore these kinds of threats and so the closing argument was entirely proper and it's far as any prejudice if it w references were not evidence that the jury shouldn't rely on them and the jury wasn't asked to rely on these these facts they were just rushed to their attention to make a point that you have to take very seriously privilege it's my understanding that that this issue is before the california supreme court right now in any event however the jury's finding of the jury's determination that the casino was not liable eighteen they're very fact specific include names and dates and supposedly it's things like apparently no money no one thought he was serious or capable of you can't really expect a fourteen year old to really take that seriously that was the ante and the lawyers are human all of these arguments purported to be facts of actual incidents dates and times and taking seriously this threat from someone who apparently could not have carried out the threat and that's why these arguments were so improper and some prejudicial