trying to get him event live on walls of our wall so that when he looked out into the hallway he saw two brothers argue with a tall baka he later identified found it as the guy shot it did not because now the jury instructions come after opposing arguments so the fence attorney never gets to argue that the fan it was not the initial aggressor so it's a very instruction from your perspective but if it was going to be calvin walls and that that is actually what provoked this first incident the alternative theory and the one that i personally believe in the jury verdicts is the one the jury accepted was that there were actually two incidents here and the evidence supported both of those theories because i believe the jury's finding that the defendant was not guilty of the aggravated battery montell gentles but guilty of the offenses against the walls brothers i'll focus more of my comments on the alternative or second theory there was more than enough evidence to support this being two different events and i know only slight evidence is needed but again substantial evidence first the jury was presented with evidence that the defendant shot fourteen at least fourteen volts but the witnesses who testified to it testified that they were shot in two rounds leonard jose and i may be pronouncing musing correctly so i apologize defendants friend testified that he heard more than one set of gunshots to metion phillips who was the bar's girlfriend similarly testified she said that she had been in the restroom and she heard the first round of gunshots she had had surgery to her foot was not moving very fast but started making her way back to the living room which is also where the front door into the apartment is located because there were two and four year old children in that livingroom as she makes her way down this hallway and she finally reaches this door again not moving fast she turns and she sees defendant shooting again this would be the second  this supports the state's theory that there were two separate events but more importantly than that there is evidence that after the defendant started shooting inside his own apartment everybody fled defendants friends fled the walls brothers fled nobody was left in defendant's apartment but the friend leonard jose is said that as soon as there was a fighting he left eric foster montel jones andrew walker also they tiredly the walls brothers all fled the apartment two of them calvin and david belief is that they went downstairs to actually leave the building completely this was based on the bar's testimony that he did not see his brothers in the hallway behind him as he was fully and that they were running back up the stairs when he was being shot in his own apartment and again the bar was fleeing to the safety of his own apartment across the hallway this clearly this abandonment of the apartment  men of this original might suggest there were two events this is when the second event picked up and defendant was questionably the initial aggressor and that's everybody has fled and defendant decides it's time to take his gun now outside of his apartment over pursuing the fleeing lavar who as you have pointed out just spoke was shot in the back twice in the bucs twice and then the third time in the leg through that door he is shooting him as he is crawling into his apartment because the blood spots show that there were a couple of pools mckayla bar had moved his body across the floor and further into the apartment of our testified he was trying to kick the door close to nisha confirms she was trying to help him when she realized the defender was shooting to get the doors closed the government's with projectile rights through the door show the defendant's account that he was shooting lavar while the bar was standing in front of the door and the door was closed simply doesn't match up projectile rush showed it was as the door with progressively closing that these bullets were going through they were being aimed at where defendants saw all of our all on the floor which is why they were going down they were here level they were down to the lower part of the door jury instruction which again nobody argues was a misstatement of the law because the jury seems to have accepted the state's alternative theory that this was a second event there's also no question and it was the initial account of the bats but defendant's account doesn't exist in a vacuum we have facts and the state have to point out the facts that were inconsistent with this account which first of all he pursued the brothers after they had fled and he shot them summarize my points this time to successfully assert justification of defense of the well you have to be in the uk the only person who was shot the evidence was inside the is simply not correct the balls brothers were not shot inside that well only montel jones was shot inside that well so defend is mark montero the only person a gun defendant ever denied shooting him defendant said he was aiming at one of the walls brothers who was i believe tousling was the way they had described the time and sadly he hit his friends instead of the balls others so there really there is no question regarding that issue so he then argued alternatively that he shot the balls brothers and self defense again the evidence doesn't support first following up on the state's theory that these were two separate events but even if it wasn't and one of them the right of self defense does not allow the pursuit and the killing of another person even if it's an initial aggressor after that person friends was defended he was the only one seen with a gun all of the other witnesses said nobody have a gun or any other kind of weapon at any time andrew walker said i saw something in love bars hands with look far as my recollection is he was standing at the doorway and i believe he said he saw the car with something in his hands but walker was very clear in all of that statement immediately with  quote i'm not going to lie and say it was and i don't know what it was that's not conclusive evidence that love r had a knife and it leaves us with the fact as the jury was told the only person who had any account of them are having a weapon was defending himself it was contrary to everybody else's direct testimony it's not that the other witnesses just didn't address the issue they were asked and they said no i five or the hip area he was shot the third time through the door but after that the defendant pushed open the bars apartment door and perceived it into the apartment he's standing over wil leave are threatening to shoot him another time with these two and four year old children over here and the girlfriend on the floor when he hears calvin and david coming up the stairs behind and i grant this is based on largely low bars testimony at this point but tenacious also confirms this then it causes the defendant to turn his attention from the bar on the floor in front of him to calvin and david who are now coming up behind him and trying to  into the apartment he shoots both of them and they fall where they were shocked the first one of the door the threshold of the door was counted and he fell face down with three gunshots it's the second one david came up on his brother but his brother on the floor blocking this entrance to the apartment and he shot again and he falls on top of helen and when they are found the two brothers are face down on top of each other in the middle of this doorway their head is inside the bars apartment their feet are in the exterior hallway that goes between defendants apartment and dollars the evidence shows that there were five bullet casings found in the middle of  apartment floor as the officer testified the weight of the bullets you checked out of the gun they jacked up and to the right therefore it is evidence that as our testified the defendant was not in the hallway shooting he was in  apartments shooting out toward the hallway and killing big calvin and eight walls it's also interesting that four of the five gunshot wounds that were shot and killed the reason for the death of victims must have been standing all of that testimony hard facts i'm contradicting acts are completely at odds with defendant's account of hand to hand babbling in tussling in a hallway if you can't match the defendant's account when defendant is asked this during his cross examination how do you reconcile your account with the evidence showing that defendants were their head was inside the apartment their feet were out and i have to add something here i apologize defendant also testified that when he shot them during this hand the hand tussle they fell in the hallway where they were shot and they never got up and they never moved so by his account they should have been in the middle of the h when he was asked how do you reconcile that with the evidence that they were in the doorway he could offer no explanation there wasn't an explanation all of this evidence clearly there were three brothers