the morning your honor my name is nicole jones of the off the state of public defender representing the opponent in this matter mr bennett i'd like to focus my argument today on the first issue raised in the brain and sufficient evidence to support other individuals to reasonable resist can be made the first inference and does not get any of those individuals two reasonable inferences can be made the first in friends and that person did not have the specific intent to kill the ok i mean there was no evidence they had to he shot in some other direction or he shot in the air or he shot into the ground ok the only evidence is that he shot at the police case there's actually evidence that he shot at the ground and not at the officers here looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the stay here what it's what they have been so evidence is there that he shot into the ground there are we have evidence now that was shooting directly at the officers but he pointed the rifle just our way and he faced us but as soon as he turned around i shouted to my partners and this is from officer mcdermott about where officer curtis was standing at that time other than that he was behind and we stopped and cause i doubt which might have just been in response to seeing a bright flash light we do know exactly from officer corps that are from officer c windshield confirming that indeed the defendant in green did shoot at that here in this case there's no confirming evidence like that he did not hit the vehicle and we cannot infer that he was intending to hit these officers the only inference that we can make here is that he did not have the specific intent to kill and that there was not evidence that he had a specific intent to kill he did not make a statement about his intent and the corbis was to the left of cars that he was anywhere in where where but if he was directing his rifle at that time and that was the state's first to show that he was somewhere in the that he directed towards police officers when police officers testified is that the saw a burst of light coming that's evidence you see everything the officers say is evidence everything the witnesses say is evidence and the jury hears all of the evidence all of the arguments they made a determination of as to what the facts are and they found this man guilty for practice and we would say that there was not a reasonable missed none of the evidence about the job or about their friendship came in at trial and i try all we know is that there was a murder as he was fleeing and that seems to go to what his intent was he was trying to get away from the officers at that in the green case in court stated that when there are competing inferences it is for the jury to decide what inference should be followed and in this case the jury found that the defendant had intent to kill when he fired his take a forty seven at the three police officers it's a people's position that there is only one inference that can be found in this case and that it is intent to kill in this case the defendant exited his vehicle shouldered his a cape forty seven to make it more steady aim did it the three police officers fired it moved closer to the car fired it moved close to the car and fired it then he turned and flack two of the officers got out of the car and were chasing him firing and now you say you know it was an intense situation and was full marksmanship as though the defendant was shaken which one is a well it's not one or the other what it is is yes he was intentionally shooting moving closer and shooting backward after the first floor there is a trail of cartridges that go toward the car and it was only after that that he retreated the opposing counsel  based on mr t s poor upbringing and terrible background his mother murdered his father and he realized that at twelve years old he suffered from bipolar disorder and has since been going to classes and getting degrees he received a maximum  one was terrible i mean should he ever be put back into society even at the minimum here he would receive forty five years on the murder and twenty years on an attempted murder that be sixty five years when mr t committed these crimes he was thirty eight years old so we're not talking about a young man that would be on the street or be over one hundred i just wanted to make two facts and two factual clarification's in rebuttal why the state argued that mcdermott said that in the search he fired at the other officers he fired that he believed that they were he fired at the other officers because he stopped playing the flight not that he saw that he fired at the other officers