talk about the context within which robert allston formed himself because although it's clear to me that the cases goes on in major metropolitan cities like philadelphia where the victims typically fear for their lives where the law enforcement has a legitimate concern of protecting people who are willing to come forward and testify for the purpose of justice being done in this case the context is you know two thousand and one one of the boston testified against two men who shot him who shot the man and he was a convicted felon in two thousand and five a believe it was two thousand and five he was and was basically trying as best he and i submit to you put his life back together was trying to work he had a child that he testified being taken to school and he was trying to go about his life as best he could within the circumstances of suggest you that having somebody say i'm going to get him in your presence after that previously shot you is more than just what my colleague refers to as a generalized fear itself than the victims and people who come the fact that you're possessing a gun to be totally excuse as a policy matter here the problems in our society is threats are abounding and this one we're not even sure if it was directed at him the reds go along all the time and threats are made if we allow people to arm themselves and be excused from punishment for doing so when why the coeur would be concerned to really narrow this down to that i can understand that i guess all i'm saying is that maybe we could maybe maybe we're talking about somebody who has previously been attacked  anyone who lives in a neighborhood where guns are prevalent may have been the victim either an assault or worse threat would have a legitimate reason for saying look somebody is out to get me i should be able to carry a down that was within the twenty four hour period i think for less than a minute so i'm wondering if maybe what he was asking for obviously is to let a jury decide that's what he was asked to do thing testify for the commonwealth he he put himself on the line after getting shot trying to do the right thing but at a preliminary hearing it came forward trial that's the one factor that in the context within which we live here in this city that i thought might be with reason machine that's why i always did and i thank you very much for the me ask a question in sentencing would this would there be any way in sentencing this could be taken into account that the reason the reason he did this was was i mean i thought that the government was basically not going through the motions but i mean they didn't ask for anything more than what they got at the sentencing on him i didn't sense that the government was all that the amount about seeking you know the one trial was in january of two thousand and two and then approximately eight months later in september of two thousand and two the defendant was caught with a gun in this case  effect of that statute is most important are the neighborhoods that mr among jello asked the court to protect by expanding the justification defense beyond as he recognizes the decisions of this or any other court would permit what we have here i interpret differently addressing an attorney all i think to the court's  mercy perhaps but we have if you believe the defendant and punch verdict quibble at the end at the beginning of two thousand and two with respect to his case the reason it is so important back to the narrowly construed parsimoniously applied justification defense remain what it is is that we do not have acquittals based on reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence and the law in the cases the district court here heard the evidence and found as  reason that we have a felon in possession statute which is so he'll then read and requires only now we possession is to disarm these very places where felons predominate without resorting to possessing firearms he may not arm himself here in advance of a confrontation that he feared and then moving to california of course is something that might be reasonable moving out of the neighborhood is reasonable but here he went to first his girlfriend's home when he was a bad home neither he nor she made any attempt to contact  that might be of any aid to him he then went to his mother's home and his mother had persuaded him to participate in the prosecution which made him fearful down at his mother's home neither he nor she nor anyone else made any contact with any authorities whatsoever his only client was that the police had previously must have been eight months earlier denied him protection without any statement of what that protection might have been he dealt with the district attorney's office he never contacted the district attorney's office he didn't do any of the things that a reasonable person in fear mi consistently without any exception interpreted in the manner in which mr man just said to require the immediate emergency in the for intervention to reach for the gun this man did not reach for a close to that here gomez the defendants went to the federal authorities who had recruited him who had accepted his volunteer ring as an informant he went to his parole agent he went to the sheriff he went to churches he went to the newspaper he even got himself incarcerated by pretending to violate his parole where he was threatened that's the kind of case that demonstrates futility we may be frustrated with civil societies capacity to enforce civil behavior but we don't correct that difficulty by creating a new justification defense that's never been recognized in the wall in the context of felon in possession cases i submit to the court that the policy diff defense of deterring people from picking up a gun instead of picking up a telephone or appealing to community groups churches others for a in these kinds of situations is exactly the direction in which we want society to be driven if mr magellan could cite any cases i haven't found them that would say that we should frequently our irresponsible and dangerous members of society expose themselves to danger and one weeps for that but it's the obligation of the justice system to enforce the mandatory did apply because of the defendant's criminal history that's where he got himself the sentence that was imposed here which he would have received had he gone to trial  davis i was not trough counsel was not to counsel at sentencing but judge davis's remarks to this defendant about not believing him even though he had to pretend to believe him for purposes of motion  defendant has not earned the mandatory sentence that the roof thirty five fifty three factors would include consideration of the circumstances of the offense if believed now i think the narrative palace man was arrested suggests that that wasn't what was happening at all here but if it if the defendant were believed then the justice system typically below ten years by about thirty minds and so we were not the sense that we have here has to do with this defendant's history