you want to handle it would like to give you two separate borehole arguments but you can certainly combine the two lead will give you a little extra time to address the matters that you wish to but in terms of the wish you want to go forward on here it's your call certainly ours i'd like to address the claims and maybe the testimony of others but we don't have the benefit of facts finds the fact by the trier of fact and it seems clear that if it was in this regard it was certainly discounted by the this judge when he said that the response to the shooting on this thing was not warranted did he say that shooting him under the circumstances all the circumstances life was in jeopardy on the day the shooting occurred and that's what it appears to be the trial judge's finding that he could have left the scene or he could of  at the time the other was testimony that the victim's hands were on the handle bar of the bike that he approached out with so that it suggests that there was simply nothing there to the gun and here's the difficult part for me because as i said you're asking us to rule as a matter of law under his most self defense applies and to say that unreasonable self defense applies against a finding by the trier of fact causes me great deal of concern because in the absence of a weapon as a society and society again do we really want to say that as a matter of law the absence of a weapon makes it on reasonable self defense as opposed to taking it out entirely of the the state either i met transfer or likes to transfer into a felony conviction he could have a previous felony and then be charged with this and similarly this case could have been friends for and those are the things that hear it and see it to me that he real difference in this case given everybody who's involved it it certainly would have made a difference in this case because aaron jackson initially is the state's witness here who is the first witness  it please the court my news peter fish from insists state's attorney on behalf of the people with regard to the issue of whether or not the trial court probably found the defendant guilty of first degree murder your honour's correctly stated that the standard of course it is a high none of those four eye witnesses ever see this victim with a gun they see an unarmed man shot three times in the back one time in the lateral left chest which is the side really not at the front so this this victim was shot an unarmed man shot four times in the back or side no one sees a gun before the incident no one sees a gun during the incident except the defendant will get there no one sees a gun after the i thought the man had a gun and there could be a finding of second degree murder interesting that you remind of the old shakespeare he doth protest too much argument that this defendant got on the stand and did a a whale of a job of embellish ing what happened in this case he took a case where if you read the record you're kind of expecting him to say i got out of the car and i thought he was reaching for his back pocket is no he has this victim stand there with almost a military position i'm going to kill you and pull his gun out the no one else sees and it's significant most significant that anthony green doesn't even see that remember anthony green is the man who flips on the stand but even if flipping he doesn't put a gun in the victim's hands he goes i don't know i blacked out but it happened and they gave this hope the story and it was but there was testimony that just an hour or two before this in that parking lot there are other incidents there's evidence in the record of those other incidents and yet but it was limited to only three and unfortunately i think i have to admit that the other witnesses did that say that there was a man to say it was said he shot somebody or they said he shot somebody so the judge who are all this evidence he was completely aware of all this evidence and in spite of that evidence he looked at what happened at that scene in that convenience store parking lot when the defendant gets out of the car he was in a car gets out of the car pushes two people away from the car so he can get a better to get at this guy and preside a gun and shoot i did not shoot in the back i don't know how he got shot in the back he pulled the gun on me he threatened to kill me he sees a scene that no one else seems sees and this isn't just you know what may have happened he's making this up he's blatantly lying  found that he was blatantly lying and again i said it was significant that green didn't even his off the flipper didn't even put that scene in there so yes when you say the judge found him to be not credible or why did he actually make those findings yes so once those findings are made then in order to reverse to reduce to second degree we would have to many has convictions yes there is there a rap sheet tender it's clear that the defense attorney has a piece of paper in his hand that he thinks relates to this background and for normally for that's what usually new use for juvenile court things as opposed to a confession disposition on the you that you buy sell at this point the prosecutor responds without contradiction from the defense attorney but those are juvenile arrests and that she arrests arrests and that's it that's calling on the record so yes i agree the prosecution has it as a duty to turn something over but in order to fight prosecution in dereliction of that duty there has to be something out there transcripts of for the purpose of post from motion and also to the issue of whether or not they should have arguments i raised but this is not something that's been argued so that it's been wait for purposes of appeal on the p c portion and no you can't supplement the record now with and and again from from the absence of anything in this record we have to say the fence has met its burden on this issue with regard to the to the post conviction issues this  transcripts the couple problems with that first well he quotes from the transcripts during the motion for a new trial several times he makes quote so clearly had transcripts of the witnesses testimony second if it's sort of begs the issue  back into the direct appeal itself because the purpose of post from motion is to is really to preserve issues or appeal there was nothing unless unless this court would decide on the direct appeal cretins was given to the circumstances surrounding the shooting because here the circumstances and initially are dealt by testimony from witnesses who corroborate d  determination is the weather second degree applies and it is certainly the way that the court dismisses his testimony saying that i don't believe he actually threatened him with a gun involved shows that his belief in the circumstances his perceptions his reactions to mr hill are in fact a reasonable that he believed that he was going to kill him that he believed took these actions essentially that the state is arguing because his testimony doesn't establish it perfect self defen in the context that if the circumstances were as he believed him to be he end there's something in the evidence that would lead him to believe that if there's nothing in the evidence that would lead him to believe that his life was really in jeopardy and he's not alive i mean we have a threat five minutes prior that he was going to kill him ups like we have we have going people independent witnesses to corroborate say i need credibility that isn't there a risk there that the courts don't and any fingerpick a jury or a judge is going to say you know what i don't think he was really reasonably even thinking salt isn't that what happened here let me let me try to put it a little differently he claims a reasonable he claims are a reasonable basis for firing the gun even though it's an unreasonable b his reasonable basis is based on a version that no one else saw he claims he was reasonable because the individual that was out to kill him was pulling a gun or was about the pull a gun or reason and reasonable belief under the circumstances because those circumstances do not exist in this case there's a reason for mr sipe to believe is that to continue to interpret the actions or believe it was all the actions in the way he investigate any intentional problems and aaron jackson to testify regarding whether the state at influence or by the advice has the money and were considering but you can see that this case doesn't turn up his testimony