in nevada that he has certain rights among those rights for the rights to present witnesses the right to testify and we have the right to a jury trial mr prawle does not receive those rights in this matter it's important to recognize any defense no matter what evidence he has to support it what does that do for the rule that basically permits the trial court to exclude from the evidence arguments  gate keeping functions extremely limited but the court records not allowed in the credibility to the terminations they were not allowed to evaluate the strength of the proffer the court can only say this is a factually impossible scenario the client is writing or if i believe this fact is factual proper that it doesn't support the elements of the defense as a matter of there's no doubt that the court has that he can function but in this case our argument is this proffer did indeed meet the el said for example with respect to the third element i find that mr peralta thale to pursue reasonable legal alternatives he could have left the scene or he could have called nine one one to summon the police in quell the situation with his brother and isn't that what the trial court did in this case but you're right it's different in time because he didn't submit to the trial court if actually implausible ridiculous story i mean what the court just talked about those are classic issues that the jury should when able to determine because this proper was i never had this is a rapidly unfolding accident situation that his brother was reaching for this gun the tool box he stopped and we have is that he was his brother who was previously been institutionalized this violent psychotic tendencies was in an argument with them punched mr prawle the started threatening him with this little harm if you looked into the tool his brother started looking in the tool box and reaching toward it believe my brother even though he moments later eternally retreated into the house still pose a continuing threat not only to myself but to himself into these neighborhoods children who we have just sworn at you know a few minutes before it would have made a difference with the evidence of showing that he downloaded the weapon but you know out of that with that's something that a jury could say well that would have been a reasonable thing for him to do and that the jury could have said it wasn't reasonable for him to think that for all the still a threat and keep the firearm that he didn't take in some other course of action but doesn't the of all it was a clip that's in the gun maybe didn't know how to unload it we don't know and there's an important point here here is that there evidence are gaps here because he never was able to testify and tells the story his dad was unable to testify and  rare cases and as the court is well aware the government's case is really the benchmark case in which the justification to defense was used in that case there were absolutely extraordinary conditions that were put in place there and if you look at the wofford in the has to reach is absolutely extraordinary when you look at the time frame in this particular case and the facts are very very important in this case this defendant mr pearl to possess this handgun that was fully loaded for over twenty five minutes twenty five minutes from the time the victim testified that he saw him wave this gun at him in his children he put that gun in his waistband if you look at the facts police did not arrive there they got a phone call at seven o nine they were dispatched i'm sorry the call went out  seven o nine and they testified in the record that they got the call they arrived there sometime between seven ten and seven fifteen but they met three streets away the three officers they met there and they made a plan for how they were going to approach the residence there they made that point and they met they essentially didn't arrive at the defendant's resident told seven twenty around there so if you look at the facts it's twenty five minutes and when they arrived there the defendant's next to his motorcycle with that same gun in his waist this gun for twenty five minutes did you ever try to secure this weapon no did you ever try to get rid of this weapon no did you ever try to unload this you know if you ever try to flee the neighborhood never did you ever try to call police no did you ever try to go to a neighbor never did police were called by the victim damien echols at seven o nine the testimony is that mr ackles had his children come home at six forty five in between six forty five and six fifty on that evening his children report to him the man  he not only waves the gun at the that the victim and his children he also otters language to them saying i'm not going to put up with this ass and stuff today so that incident is about two or three minutes long he walks back with his children to his residence he's distraught and angry thinking about revenge calls his sister what should i do go after him no seven zero nine he makes the phone call to police non emergency number they then relayed the dis that he does nothing but sit in his front of his garage works on this motorcycle with a fully loaded weapon and this is a two time convicted felon that does this was part of the twenty five minutes was taken up with the confrontation with mr ak well i disagree with that your honor if you look at the where he and for all to have a confrontation and for all to at that point waves the gun and ask him and yell something about i'm not putting up with this today then probably goes back to his house excuse me echols goes back to his house and call nine one one correct ok so it and then by the time the police get there peralta is calmly working on his motorcycle with the gun stuck in his waistband ok and that whole period of time is about twenty five minutes correct ok but the eccles arrives so that proffer of him supposedly having this implausible story happens before six forty five or six fifty because he already has the gun in judgment went over that when he questioned the proffer and so when you look at these four requirements laid out by the lemon case and also that was looked at in gomez we believe that none of these four are satisfied in the first one that is absolutely not satisfied as there was no least reasonable legal alternative number three as i stated he had so many opportunities during his twenty five minutes to get rid of this weapon do something this weapon secure this weapon go to police could not do that on the force element in looking at the fact that there was no causal relationship for the weapon he wasn't immediately spontaneously telling the police oh my just took this from my brother i just did this never mention that never made any statement to police when he's arrested simply is reaching for the gun he has to be put in an arm hold in order to be arrested because he's reaching for this particular weapon so i don't believe there's any causal relationship under number four from the threatening harm that happened twenty five minutes before and him possessing that gun at that time looking at the first rationale that is on the  i would also argue that he was under no immediate threat or great bodily harm when just proper was put forth there's no testimony in that proffer by defense counsel that the defendants brother ever said i'm going to kill you i'm going to murder you i'm going to do this i'm going to do that there was no evidence of that whatsoever so looking at the first problem number three and number four they are not satisfied whatsoever from the facts that are put forth in this case in looking at gomez and looking at the extra his brother yet he has a delusional brother whatever to say that he can go visit him i would agree your honor that that's probably a little bit of a stretch the government could see that but when we look really at the other three factors there's no way the defendant can meet th take to try it took well we did one full day the government's case in chief and then we got into this issue and then they did not present a defense was a day and a half a day and a half trial and how much time with the defen well it's said that went to the district mean by that well you're out of there is how does your body a law that's in place here this justification especially in france is not without limits and there are limits here and so i understand this wondering what the district court now when he said it would be  twenty five minutes he just came up here made that up that's not in the record at all it's contrary to the proffer and can't read the record you know and they also were mistaken that he saw when he did the same thing in their brief they said all this defense only pertains in extraordinary another is being threatened which is exactly what happened in this case the law doesn't say that only a permit for his extraordinary circumstances it's said that only pertains to extraordinary circumstances when the pendant arms themselves in advance as he did in coma and that's exactly what that