and instruction of second degree was given to them and that was their finding the defendant having been trying to free the us from second degree having been given that was the verdict of the jury mind in fact much of the prosecution did today presented expert testimony that the cause or the mental state of the defendant at the time were the reasoning behind the looking specifically for that person but in this case my client was out i guess you'd say minding his own business but they saw him he was on by they were fired multiple times in the direction of the people that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew what he was doing that but they found that he believe there were essentially four issues in motion in which the defense wished to bring in after trial regarding what was known to the defendant someone in the back running away in fact put themselves in that situation what would i do i don't think any of us really ever know is mr lewis put in a situation where he had to find out what he would do and what he was going to do in the process what information so to say they were going to put an expert down to say what it was but then disallow the defendant from saying you know this is what i was thinking at the time oh i'm only with one exception all the members of the people who were victim instead to the circumstances in this case the court said the facts were substantially similar relating to the actual shooting whilst the defendant was at the scene and the have almost the identical facts in this case as the trial court set the searching hours in before was very specific below sang i'm not looking at the searching our lack thereof i am saying once not to see what actions were taken so i believe it's it lacks any relevance to the issue of does how does the defendant's conduct i'd like you to talk about the definition of knowledge if you release the funds conduct in the way the jury was instruct decision to arm himself into submission confrontation what does that how does it relate to his decision making and also the issue mostly it relates to the justification instigator we have evidence of fights we don't have evidence that defendant didn't instigate down even the incidents at school it was fights it was not defended alone against as far as whether or not he should take a gun and whether or not needed to take some action the question is on the night of the hour and the people's position was well wait a second he defined he did ste member or more specifically probably a gang associate there was testimony that at least one or two of the victims were getting worse for lack of better term i would suggest that if these were violent gang members escape from that by its own task when you numerous occasions when he went to a park he was able to run the two blocks back home he never said that he had a fear that any of them had weapons he never stated that anything factual presentation the fact is that defendant is wrong presswood was not and could not testify that he was shot by a gang member of the defendant's i'm sorry we agree with the fact that you have to look at when you're valid when what possible options are you do have to take into account what with the current how quickly did you have an opportunity however we're not suggesting that a lot of his actions were available months he was stopped at the location of the car please understand that first off that evening the yelling or gang slogans of jackson in belvedere that is right where the gas station is he then claims he saw them make a u turn on jackson come back he couldn't have been this far down the belvidere in order to see that knowingly and intentionally fired a gun in the direction there might be some circumstances and if you look at these well i'll call williams won the first williams before it was remanded in reverse i'm stubborn issue there's a person would shoot off to the side those are the kinds of circumstances they say you can fire in the direction but there might be additional factor that when you still grant an involuntary inset the court said wait a second forget the fact that we don't accept the defendant's comments directly not to say we ever can but we have to have an additional fact and see if they said the fact that two of the six bullets hit a human target rubio in the head and nap so again you're not talking about shooting off you're talking about pretty much you directly on this he's sitting in the car and interestingly enough to those three bullets didn't she hit the was not entitle to involuntary manslaughter or subtraction this case did not instigate the drive bys to house where he was threatened we know all those are using any case for defense mental state as much information as possible is reasonable can be given to determine that we don't  really know what any particular person was thinking at any particular point we take circumstantial evidence and we analyze it granted up to divine what we person who has been the victim of gang intimidation to harm himself or herself here regardless of what precipitated the hatred