hospital treatment the court below made a mistake in relying on riley's testimony because riley was not the evidence the trial showed the mr moore was driving in a car to meet a contractor when officer robert i can perform a traffic s ickes car was equipped with a dash camera and he was wearing a body camera after a while had complied with i d s requests given his identification and bike he went back to his vehicle deputy reilly arrived on the scene and approached o  util there are different accounts of how things progressed but one thing is certain after one minute riley escalated the situation dramatically by suddenly reaching inside the meals vehicle a brief altercation ensue the engine of his vehicle multiple times then riding the rich back with his flashlight with his right hand witness who says that o'neill struck but his testimony was riddled with fabrications first he claimed that when he arrived on the scene o'neill speech was slurred his eyes would last but we know that is not of the video evidence that plainly contradicts those statements from all from debbie rowe second he claims the steering column was damaged and at the room a vehicle was missing but again we know that that is not true and how do we know it's not true again officer biking does not back him up again o'neill was unimpeached when he demonstrably true that was false and perhaps most critical for purposes of this court the video evidence shows that to be a lie the timeline of events and the video make it nearly impossible for that have taken place again as i mentioned earlier the video shows the entire alteration inside the car lasted ten seconds at most and as i discussed rightly says that during that time because we have the benefit of the video to show that it shows the trial or simply judge the facts right even if one gives riley's testimony some credit the proof you still insist missions to prove the required elements insulting of the nature and the other is neutral at best and looking at the surrounding circumstances by use only mission it was a while escalating situation he was the one who intruded into the vehicle in a sudden and surprising fashion were no threats or fighting words there was nothing to indicate circumstantially that my client had an intent to make contact with debbie riley the weapons used the third factor no weapons were used here my client did not go out of his way to arm himself insulting or provoking nature with james riley knowing james randi to be a peace officer engaged in his official duties the standard in this case is viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the people any rational trier of fact going to found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt defendant multiple times to put the car park defendant did not comply and instead began screaming at you gravely fuck you i'm not going to do what you want me to do the two men at this point  he had one thing and inside it was down enough that he could put his arm in and grab the current on your show correct after arm to continue to nature and that defendant knew james wright was in fact of this officer when he made that contact here there's no question that if an active knowingly when he made the contact all the circumstances surrounding the contact and the contact itself establish inferred from the circumstances surrounding an aggressive behaviors immediately prior to the battery which is exactly what happened here both officers testified to the fact that defendant was angry  and pulled them down an effort to keep deputy rally from putting in the current car he acted he acted knowingly when he struck the deputy rightly with his closeness that that that's the act itself he he hit him with a closed fist three to five times in the head and chest area and something that provoking is not exactly defined home but the courts have found that in a compass is a wide range of behavior such as even de minimus contact which can be insulting or provoking if the context requires it or shows that and here that's what this context shows that if in it again he was agitated angry cussing at the officers trying to physically prevent that there was no insult in their provoking contact but that's not the standard anywhere as outlined in case law or statute there does it it doesn't have to be a threat for it to be insulting or provoking and there in this case defendant no different knowingly made contact with dangling but none of that is the charger it is a matter at the video shows that it's not in that condition so i guess then when we have the having nights to put that kind of i mean i don't understand in the car with moving he wasn't moving what action then would provoke not just reaching in the done breaking th regarding why he was putting his hand in there for the car park i mean at this point deputy ready could hear the engine boring wow defendant was grabbing him fearing that he may be drug down the street he was read was making reasonable demands of definite with the car in park just for off the officer safety reasons and for the safety of defendant for that matter i mean if he's got his foot on the gas pedal with the brake pedal and i mean it's it's common for  slipped i mean anything happen especially when they're struggling and the fact that the senate won't put the car parked just it's but he didn't heed the others didn't do that for the other officer who had heard and gone back and was processing this information so that you know is there he was you know that gave him the right then to go and put his hand in there and force the son which is you know in fact the initial touch that the i or to make a band at some point to yet some point i'm sure the defendant did let the window down a little bit more the video actually shows while it doesn't you can't hear the conversation between deputy raylene defendant you can see the two minute conversing initially without incident and that the riley when he arrives on the scene officer a bite to eat testified that you know he did say the defendant will put the car in park he's not in cooperate if that's a definite rather goes over and you know debbie riley maintained that he broke the window after initially reaching into the vehicle which to your point shows the window was down or enough for him to reach in the vehicle put it in arc and then bring his other arm out but that with use a flashlight to break the window mr o'neill says that when riley approached you repeatedly struck him but the window down further put the window down further put the window down further if you don't put the window down all the way by the time i count to three i'm going to break you're going to break and then proceed to break the window  know i think you know and i'm where i was speaking about earlier is overall the overall picture of this in terms of looking at intent from circumstances and that is did my client show and intends to engage in with these officers again was he being a model citizen was he complying perfectly with their demands no was he angry that's undisputed he was angry not necessarily at the officers he said his own testimony was he was angry and frustrated because he was lost and trying to find out where he was supposed to be knowing he was doing anything wrong in his opinion and suddenly he got pulled over and this does appear known in the state mentions that he was purportedly pulled over for having a  officer switches in the morning like that there's this real surprise and not necessarily time to form an intent to make contact of that nature with the officer again i don't think you could i think you'd be hard pressed to find it's not the record anywhere be hard pressed to find