of chicago in the early morning hours of testimony your defense as well as extensive ballistics evidence sure that numerous saw first officers fired numerous shots at the van during th gun through them through the window and fired it at him but there was no there was no testimony there was only the two officers for whom mr fagan was convicted of attempted murder that testified that he had so the argument then are not a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence was that in the context of this evidence where only the police testimony as opposed to the objective evidence showed to mr fagan fired this weapon that it was reversible error for the state to say in closing argument and i quote the defendant is literally caught at three thousand one sucking drive in the stolen vehicle with the smoking gun counsel's objection the they were fired either because there was no ballistics evidence recovered so there was also there for the state never to misconstrue the evidence but then to bolster the police credibility and attack the defense credibility in their closing argument first base it saying as to the police we need the police they're out there serving and protecting they run and when we won out this this was improper in that it was attempting to bolster the credibility of the police improper for the state to make reference to the punishment that how this how this saying the obvious that he has so much to lose either he's convicted or found not guilty how is it saying anything about punishment evidence presented by the prosecution has something to  a gun there was ample testimony from various police officers that was very credible that defendant did in fact have a gun they saw him they saw him shoot at them we don't need gunshot residue or bullets to prove it we're over it yes we did have the police officers shells after because police officers that is their job to hear a firearm they know to remember where exactly they shot at and hit the fan it was shooting out the window who knows where his bullets where we don't need to have those to prove the defendant had a firearm as a prosecutor's remarks the people contend that they were proper because they were proper inferences from the evidence and then no way to save the evidence presented not to comment either individually or well actually it has two meanings now first i would like to point out that while the senate corrected it in his reply brief in the original brief he was stating misstating the record over and over saying that the prosecutor said he was literally caught with a smoking gun prosecutor did not say that prosecutor said defendant was literally caught at the address three thousand one south king drive in the stolen vehicle with the smoking gun so it could be argued that he meant he was literally caught in the stolen vehicle all which is proven moreover if we are going to get into the word literally even if it were to be carried over to smoking gun it would be ridiculous to claim that we have to assume all the jurors had to believe that the gun was actually had smoke coming out of it we had testimony the gun had been recently fired and recently fired multiple times and it's disingenuous to claim and quite frankly it belittles these jurors to think that we have to assume they thought the smoking indicates we do not have to assume the jury jury took the most damaging interpretation of anything the prosecutor said second none of the prosecutor's statements regarding what the police did were improper because it was not a voucher for their credibility but in the prosecutor's stated the things about the police it was in rebuttal and it was in direct response to what was provoked by defendant's closing argument defendant's closing argument he was saying if he was running away from police were shooting at him for what he claimed was no reason whatsoever in response prosecutor was saying no this is their job they are running when we run out they are trying to protect us they trying to protect the community from this guy who just stole a car and was shooting bullets all over the city that is in no way credibility after and we maintain the record makes it clear that it was not can technically relevant because it was brought up in r not the jury might believe it on the standard did not seem credible and then we had that compared to all of the other evidence including multiple officers stating the story happening completely different way and we had an officer who came in claim to defend and given three prior statements they completely morphed each time his story went from not stealing the car to having someone else in the car to having a little man drop the gun in the car too i thought i ran over a little man and they were chasing me for that too i have no idea why they're chasing me and the prosecutor can comment on the credibility of defendant story as long as it comes from the evidence and the exactly what we have here that  to lose was also proper argument yes right now he says here prosecutors said he had so much to lose in people be griffis that said saying that he had the most to lose was proper because it was talking about defendants not have to testify the prosecutor is telling the jury this defendant had a motive to lie to you because he has much to lose or the most to lose it was not the prosecutor did not bring up defendant sentence at all every jury as your honor stated understand that the the defendant loses there is going to be some one form of punishment or another but commenting on his completely incredible story is not an improper argument and as the court held in people the runge i would just like to reiterate that reviewing courts will find reversible error only if the defendant demonstrates  remarks were so prejudicial that real justice was denied the verdict resulting from the error would be so clearly do not have here for any of the three arguments as to the other argument that defense counsel brought up defendant's second claim you may see more compelling because i like to call the sticker shock of a long sentence but his claim fails will statutorily and under the case law regarding the firearm enhanced man to the straight facts of what he was convicted imprisonment of not less than twenty years and not more than eighty years eight is clearly increasing the range of saying it shall be a term off and c is for i'm sorry if i am is a class x felony for which twenty years shall be added to the term so a provides you with the term for attempting to shoot a peace officer then see if adding twenty years to that term counsel also thought of so my point saying that that means they should be mutually exclusive which i would completely disagree there's also a clear policy issue here where the legislator could obviously want to both try to deter people from trying to kill peace officers which gives you the higher range and from trying to use a firearm while doing so you can try to kill a peace officer without using fire i think because there's some acorns in the word and the legislator could have used the word or they could have made these completely different numbers but there are some icons in there that weren't and so we look at the statute as legislature did intended the trial court wanted to it could have  for for being armed with the firearm he gets the check here for shooting in the direction of somebody he gets the fifteen year in for actually causing great bodily harm he gets the twenty year so he's  the trial court province to do so based on the statute in the legislature wants to change a statute then they should but as it is currently there are some acorns and the word and i would like to reiterate again that this is a and see where the shall be a term of imprisonment and added not expressly prohibit using enhanced bans when also flying a but the public policy concerns underlying facts subsection a differ from concerns underlying i am enhanced and there are two separate things the court went on to say a sentence applying both addresses the legislature and i quote desire to deter intentional killings of peace officers and to discourage the use of firearms in the commission of felonies there are two completely distinct and separate considerations therefore based on the plain language of the section and the case law and i would like it is a corruption of the language and it's a slippery slope if the state can literally say anything and have it support it or not by the evidence and excuse it by using the word literally which traditionally  is gone how is it unfair for the state say literally are not the guns right there there's the smoking gun everybody understand that that's hyperbole i'm not sure that they do understand that indicate this case where it be determinative question was not whether there was a gun found mr mr fagan agrees that there was a gun found at his feet but here is the explanation as to how that could have been other than  plain language is clear are certainly the cases and especially the most recently decided jackson case would seem to indicate that there is some confusion in this court's questions sort of speak to the ambiguity of the statu