so we understand kept out but however we did not believe that if he thought it was legally material most of them legally material that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different with  interview in various depending on the different issues i do believe that the court articulated but it's not actually applying the correct standard there what is the standard you believe the christians of the pliers to shoot you well he needed  case was self defense was a correct but it was self defense in the sense that the defendant said he was afraid that brat was going to take his gun not chris so if he was afraid of defendant and those characters are those people then defendant had grasped jane which upset that later you know they came back and it was only because their dresser touched the defendant to be there if he was so terrified of these people but the fact of the matter is he was not aware of the coming simple county report at the time of the incident so we can't say it changed his mindset because he knew about it he didn't know about a supervision it was two years prior in a call to fists and kicking and it did not have any gun again because i do respectfully think it's relevant that the defendant didn't know about it so we can see that it changed his mindset at this because they actually reduced from first first degree murder to second degree finding that he defendant had some kind of the fear here but in no way are you ever going to get to the point where you find it to be reasonable nobody touched him nobody had that he was approaching took a few steps forward towards he certainly wasn't close range close enough to be shot he's walking away but he was not the evidence doesn't who may or may not be approaching him but certainly are there and there is a verbal confrontation so it's one against said that the one person was provocative throughout the entire night he three convictions which is our alternative  because there was contradictory testimony between mr ruffin and mr cummings as to those prior encounters that were just discussed with the state and of course music he says the money was to the effect of you know mr upton kept coming up and harassing me and aggravating trial was that he had met up with someone that he knew from the apartment complex or maybe it was his own apartment complex i can remember specifically and they had walked to a gas station he did appear and were walking back when they encountered the the cummings  everyone else so that's why he was there was the best of my recollection of the record why was he there with a gun when i was an issue for one of the claims he brought up on the thirty minute postcondition petition which was that he had been shot not  how it happened because it happened so quickly so once people started chasing mr roughing it once he pulled out a gun and started shooting it was over a matter of seconds so the idea that you could say well you know mr cummins who has this history of violence  specifically inciting others to violence is somehow going to have you know that condition vacated this to him but the understand i don't think it's a possibility in this case not only because we don't have to support the law for it it's an issue for suppression but supported by the idea to the individuals were shot in the leg as to be in the back of the leg how long does it take to to see the muzzle flashes and make a quick turn i can't say that instance but that would be our argument  t look like an aggressor the other thing is you even if you have these people chasing after him there is some discrepancy in how many of my family didn't three he defended is the one that turned in use deadly force which would not be justified especially once the victims have turned and are running away as to bring the corner actually said to the shots in the back or what had caused the death and the shot in the neck that contributed to it them again it was his burden because we are now at the third stage of the post conviction to prove that it would have likely change this result and the faster th evidence that he put forward the i would for his own attorney i would look at this i would investigate this i would see if i could offer it i would because it could cause a mini trial and it could distract the jury and it could do all these other things so the question is do defended prove that this would have changed the result no because of the defendant shown was that what this  all the same things but what if it was an attempted murder or second degree murder and possession of a controlled substance very clearly trying to get there and yet the result would not change as separately will i actually think that in effect proves the point is that if the defendant was afraid of brad something that's going to make press look somehow more aggressive and he already did isn't going to show brad as being more aggressive so it's not relevant to th point that he's you know this defendant self defense again he didn't she says brad is coming at me i mean to defend myself meeting chris