in your time stimulation the fact that we don't really need redundant arguments if you can focus your time and something that hasn't been employed by the attorney that would be great but if you feel it's necessary ross and this court and me but i have rejected the presumption that any object that has the outward appearance of a gun is dangerous it is important to note that it says state spending to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the object here was  times he testified at trial that you saw the defendants in the video with a guy he described simply as a guy with no additional description and he was never close to the object because he had locked himself in his office before the men ent based on the evidence from trial this court cannot determine the weight or composition of the object and thus it cannot determine whether the object was capable of being used as a bludgeon accordingly as the score to date mr harris's conviction fo door holding that and he does seem to have some difficulty manipulating it while he's holding a number of other objects in his hands and also he's trying to put the gun in his pockets and is very there was sagging pants now the sagging at that point before he ever touched the gun and then put the items back up and walked back over to the door where again his hands continued to sag mean it was more of a fashion it was his fashion decision and not the weight of the gun that pulled down his pants are just disappearing position to view it and the basis for the court's findings were frankly a little bit convoluted the first part of his findings he i read that the suit has shown that this was a gun but he did so after old marcy told him that he was not sure that he actually saw a weapon and the did and the day before the video in said the victim was here the victim was confronted with that testimony on the stand on cross we he could have said shot which would be a credibility determination about what was it a fifty shot gun how the judge looks at the the video the judge is looking at a video is making a determination we have a situation where the witness is testifying to what he saw from his perspective in this at the time of the crime happened in the videotape is played to correct what he saw from three different perspectives so is not just the videotape and that's why in the interview is absolutely inappropriate in the situation we leave the court to view this videotape as many times as the court needs to view this videotape but it is along the line is my understanding is that we are to look at the objective nature of the getting at the subjective feelings of the victim and what was the testimony you're talking about was a subjective feelings of the victim he could have been sentenced to thirty years in prison i believe based on that statement that the trunk court actually considered that if there was a b b gun and in this case it doesn't matter because as you said in the opinion and that was testimony from the the witness in their victim in this case and that's why we can't just view the videotape like we could in a silent witness dr and it is both together and that's how we need to view this through the holy maybe gun in the air it's the circumstantial evidence of how this weapon was used throughout this on gravity so is it your position that if if there is a video that whatever the judge in  season that video we have to give the same deference to then find it as he would give to that judge's evaluation of witnesses or be given lesser  possibility whether or not this may have been a language issue give these fellows an extremely long sentence and that is that's certainly not supported by the record here the court does not make that explicit statement that he's trying to save the defendants from an additional in terms of years and eleven case now it was reversed by the ruling supreme court on different grounds but we're here and we are is also a completely different subject matter it was a child pornography case and it was a criminal sexual assault case but in that case videotape that the good was thirteen in the same manner we can't determine the weight or composition of this i you know and i buy and they will tell you that this is was not at all cited in our briefs by it was something that i happened to put up during the course of preparing for arguments so you know the state has not had the benefit of looking at that case but you know intrusive the standard of real credibility just isn't you're sure in this case i mean as i pointed out think you can draw any conclusions that that was the basis of his ruling because ultimately he directed our all of the counts related to the firearm so whether he was trying to save or i'm seeing him from a longer sentence this certainly will come up