baby joseph to chicago right now because she just said i didn't mom on him to take the baby at that time period and she reacted by trying to ready to be back and shortly she wanted to get some parenting issue story or something of that nature well that's something that happened after he made her statement and that's when she was walking with the door to keep him from exiting after he knowing his purpose it's very difficult to say whether her reaction was reasonable or not she basically assumed or we don't know you have to fill in the gaps by saying well gee it must have been she thought it was for some bad purpose and what was the insulting and provoking domestic battery charge that charges based on contrary occurred after the phone call and after with the calls that's when she f through the exit door he pushed her aside she'd be in contact with the closet door closet door came off the hinges so what if any impact does the finding of not guilty on that charge presented failure to say to see my mother or to visit my aunt isn't that in the nature of harassment i would disprove it your honor i think you cannot assume  the baby now white house saying to the mother of a newborn to visit my mother or to go visit my aunt isn't that the nature of harassment isn't it the nature of a statement his failure to say this time to the mother of the child the words he says i'm taking the baby now it's eight thirty at night it's a new part as opposed to saying to them on their i want to take the baby to visit my mother much more reasonable rather than cartoon case which expressed the state will talk more about that as a witness harassment case in bad involve the question of whether the degree of whether the little quantity of the stress of the quality of distress proved those two arms there talked about whether he's the statement was made for a purpose that was necessary or you know reasonable under the circumstances and whether reaction was violence and you know what to do with any discussion in courts of barack what is domestic violence before this trial started was there any emotion was there any didn't want to and she plainly didn't want to find it to take her son to chicago i don't know what other words were used i wasn't there certainly neither was the trial court but the victim was and she testified at trial and apparently you know to the extent of her the promotional distress that was appear because he really feels said it wasn't it wasn't really a scuffle were it wasn't it wasn't real abuse it wasn't insulting and provoking or something of that i i you know i really did i mean even the de was he knew that would constitute the ring and i think i think if you if you put the question like that and say it mildly maybe not but if you look at it in light of the circumstances you know and we bring in all circumstances that we go about you know one month old child going to the city march it's cold it's far presume it's cold because it's march it's far away given the location i'm i believe that's what i believe that's why the statute is purposefully broad it's designed to apply for your situations i think the more important question is you know what is the it's not just a it's not just unilateral approach it's not just offense not require a predicate offense of domestic violence i believe in but not to go this is actually charged and you know he wasn't charged with harassment interfering after an act of domestic violence interfering with reporting that so why wasn't he charged with an act of domestic violence and why doesn't this require a charge of domestic violence so but challenging the sufficiency of the evidence i didn't look at the definitions and if you look at the definitions of domestic violence in florida and they all seem to include some element of physical doesn't come anywhere near that now another thing to be clear about is that the complaint says you charge him with off the interference of the forty investor violence in that after having committed the