district court didn't reach this question so that there isn't a review in that sense it's so it's more a question of this court looking at was it reasonable for the d c ca was it reason optician a federal law to by waters at all so the only evidence about a knife was from hargrove and hargrove testimony clearly necessarily created a reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury about withdrawal since he himself openly acknowledge that that was communicated to him by mr waters that he ran like a coward didn't want to face me and was not trying to fight mr harper was open about that but he decided that because he was had been killed he believed he was going to end retribution kill mr waters and the others and wish to withdraw here pardon where is the withdrawal here the withdrawal is to make this something other than a continuous attack yes it's a withdrawal because he could disagree with that that's the standard you have to show that no reasonable juror could come to any other conclusion other than that that was a withdraw well given that the victim with your single case that you can cite to in the history of the republic that has that reach came over me and i wanted to kill lewis for what he just talked to me so how could it possibly be that someone's right to self defense is restored when he's trying to scape from the attack by the m at all that the game had switched up at that point that they had stood up there in this moment of shock and disengagement when they were both on the floor and mr hart was my questions were fundamental who if if someone is because it is very common and it's hard for me to see how under that circumstance the right i mean if you if you've gone away for a couple of hours but perhaps but when it's instantaneous like it's moved from the scape and attack from the man you try to kill just seems to me the jury no reasonable jury would accept that well the whole premise of this area of law this withdrawal area is that the aggressor you know that it's changed up that the hand withdraw even though you were the aggressor and the timing factor and think is less important than the with the standard says is that you have to take actions or words indicating an intent to withdraw and that was clearly done and effectively communicated there was really noticed they're viewing the government's evidence in the light most favorable mr hargrove after he had retreated that he then summoned them for help and that's when they joined in and arguably if you can make out a self defense they could have made out a defense of others but i don't think that's necessary because he has a defense to this co liability and also you know although i it's unclear how this was in furtherance of a conspiracy at this point to to steal  so there is no evidence that he was trying to disarm him there was no evidence he was trying to save himself and in fact he essentially was blowing himself up to his not defending himself against mr waters or the others he's accepting his death and and and almost hastening it by his actions on purpose his only purpose the being his desire to kill waters and given this no reasonable juror could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not that if that's possible if that's possible when you lose on that argument well i think the victim's perception that's the government's evidence the light most favorable is that that's not what what what it was i don't know where the juror would get that from when the witness communicated his intent to withdraw well it was the the running into the utility room trying to hide from him with a look of fear on his face and essentially we know he communicated it because the message was received it was it's an unusual case and normally the victim is not saying yes he tried to withdraw but that's what the victim testified to essentially i mean that's sort of that is the government's waters actually reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury again he had the look of fear on his face in light of you know harbors understandable rage hargrove admitted his goal is to kill the defendant in my mind still focus on trying to kill lewis if i could just break his head across the border gas line i could blow the whole house up mr hargrove recognized i mean he's mr waters recognized hargrove was trying to kill him and said so explicitly so there's really no doubt there because he doesn't just say help me help me he says he's trying to kill me he's trying to kill me so that shows his subjective belief as to the danger he was in and that fear was reasonable he was pinned and he was being centrally tossed like a rag doll by this enraged hand to hand combat expert to characterize and stop as a trained assassin and so under those circumstances no rational jerk would think that mr waters fear was unreasonable beyond a reasonable doubt and finally the government failed to establish that  that the force that he used was excessive on the issue is again the subjective belief of the defendant who said he's trying to kill me there was not an escalation here of violence since it was already a lethal battle going on  self defense permits the use of quote reasonable force to repel the perceived attack and that's parker parker explains excessive force very well when twenty seven steps were necessary well the defend by definition they were not sufficient to repel the attack and it's also the subject of excess determination in the heat of the moment and you know call mind what's reasonable to the mind in the moment might not be as reasonable to  was receiving and that he only sees his attacker once this other object was used against him he's not the conduct at issue here this blunt object and he also agreed that as the moment that he stopped fighting stopped trying to kill mr waters that they immediately stopped so again you have to have a reasonable doubt whether that's excessive i mean you don't look at you know whether something else under you will the your case you don't consider what else a defendant might have done it's only excessive it's if it's completely disproportionate it's an escalation of force which it was not here so given all that the government you know presented insufficient evidence to negate  anything in addition this was best understood as one continuous episode where hargrove and opponent were struggling and appellant retreated briefly into the utility room in the struggle continued cases like grover and worry have found withdrawal where there's been a whine or two and a half hour break in the proceeding the disengagement between the parties in here you do not have that  you have basically one continuous episode and you have the close temporal time and the close proximity of the combat and storing the time period withdraw in peterson for example the the first the first aggressor said that he was leaving got in a car tried to drive away and that constituted withdrawal and in your hypothetical although walking to the exit is more like withdrawal you know run out of the exit and were gone for some period of time you may well have withdrawal but in that circumstance where it's such a brief period of time and the withdrawal is not unambiguous you wouldn't have withdrawn here of course the clock the facts are even more clear upon is backing up in a very brief period of time a very short distance and then the struggle of struggle ensues inside the utility room so you don't have the facts that you have in these other cases where there has been withdrawal and i'm a utility room that didn't mean that appellant had withdrawn for example or didn't indicate he didn't say anything about renouncing or surrendering or giving up the fight he didn't his co defendants were still standing right  meaning a comment like you know i'm leaving or i'm surrendering or i'm not trying to rob you anymore you don't have that here in the absence of that court where courts have found withdraw there's been this break in time of an hour or two and a half hours so they didn't but i haven't i'm not aware of any case again that would find it in this close greg you know we have lots of cases like that where there's no case precisely where we figure out we're right you know but then you how you have the fact that they're struggling you if they said so or there was a gap in time but you know where i guess this case would be a lot more like dorsey where the the original defending the first aggressor is armed the of victim is on arm had been restored to his right of self defense because he in part because he was armed and he was attacking an unarmed victim so i guess all of those things together would be the facts that would show that despite that one aspect of hargrove stastny that you don't have with draw and this court has to look at the entire record and have to look at that record in the light most favorable to the government on sufficiency review and then there's another layer on top of that that i guess goes to judge wil household strategic decision given the closeness of of this the fact that the parties are arguing about what the facts even are you know these are yet another layer and that's under it but would we have to come to conclusion that the the d c what repeals was not just all but i'm reasonably that's correct i mean i guess that's the first level of review is the statutory level which is that this court has to find that the court facts just illustrates that council made a reasonable strategic decision in not raising this claim for the reasons that are or to kill a did earlier if there are no further questions we would urge the court to  ultimate question and acknowledges the ultimate question in our favor and you know there's no reason require some extended period because the law wants to encourage a fights to end and wants immediate withdrawal is a good thing that you don't want to encourage victims you know the non aggressor to continue once a person withdraws and as whether this is a strategic decision it cannot be a strategic decision to win that when a question of law is involved and say yes or no answer and it's