only harm but i don't think did your client actually had a counterfactual conditional wherein he said you know if it weren't for the fact that she was as good looking issue was for something better nature i would run it through or do not fall through all of that so the defendant i don't think is in better position to know what is going to happen then the deputy who was the deputy basically just took the position five or ten feet away the courtroom was separated by what one of the state's witnesses called us secured doors unlocked and secured doors and hallways there wasn't any  done now not even the position dad there has to be such a request in order for the state and city to beat its burden but in this particular case where there is evidence that the officer who claimed it was his duty to guy's going to the king county jail and he's there he's going to stay right and one of these officers then notifies a workweek and they're the ones then dead take up the mant understand your point and i guess my point is that you know go back to sitting and repeating myself that it's a question of whether mr garcia subjectively was practically ignoring it is the remaining words of somebody who is you know people are usually happy when you're in a bind court and they're under arrest they're going to jail and so it would have been reasonable for him to question your relatives are practically certain it is what is supposed to be practically certain is the idea that somewhere in this game post office there the judge will be apprised of the threat or is it that the defendant has to be practically certain that he knows who the people are that are going to transfer the threat or convey the threat officer that came on the scene those even terminate as a practically certain situation that that person then calls the judge's office talks to the secretary she writes a note gives it to the bailiff the bailiff then takes it to the judge either in chambers around the bench what is this practically certain is if the judge is actually given notice of the threat or is he supposed to actually have some idea as to the chain of events that supposedly will what the bottom line then is or the condensation of your argument is whether or not they're rational try to fact could decide whether or not this scenario would result in a rational trier of fact the saying we have a reasonable doubt want to blow up the building in front of for law enforcement officers now the discrepancy with regards to repeated threats officer always said after i tried to calm him down and inform him that he had thirty days to hold the sentence he didn't repeat those threats to me the louder that the defendant points out that to officer all day in this testimony he stated that it's inconceivable that someone were to hear these threats and not inform the judge but he did not inform him as also pointed out by this court yes he didn't inform them but also all they did not go and tell him but then they didn't inform someone else when investigating interviewed those officers and then went back to judge tracy and informed him of her informed her of those threats your honour's so just because the officer directly or personally do not do it does not mean that the three other officers could not have done it themselves is your point it is right there would be inmates or detainees in the lockup this because these officers had something else to do at that moment besides sit right there don't move go talk to the judge yes your hon specific threats and a public area about the judge about to kill the judge i'm going to kill the judge i'm going to break her neck i'm going to blow the facility and saying that he forty seven these are specific threats made in front of three or four law enforcement officers that way back and then just told the judge tracey that is the language of the statute when looking at following the statute correctly here i think that in fact it is a relevant factor because the longer it takes to report i think the less likely it is that the person who made the threat can be said to have been practically certain that it would occur i wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the implications of your argument is as if this is a done overview and we're supposed to determine whether or not we believe that this is beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to whether or not a rational trier of fact could have decided what the facts were here that a stamp wish that he was guilty of a crime and so when you start talking about hypotheticals about the length of time and whatever those are facts specific  a hypothetical case that has nothing to do with whether or not a rational try or effect would have found this defendant guilty under this set of facts so no you soon as you start throwing examples and os be it's as if you were at least to me you're arguing that we have the ability to make them know review we're supposed to do we decide this and i want to point out that such arguments don't work because i'm supposed to sit here and decide whether or not to be rational trier of fact we're to determine whether or not he was guilty and you know if you were to limit your arguments to by the trier effect