good morning janet mahoney on behalf of the people of the state of illinois and i expect my argument to take approximately fifteen minutes very good this is levy please proceed with your argument and they relied on that in his decision to start with the first issue which is the legal standard of reason from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene faced with the circumstances that  or whether an officer you think so that the police officer who somebody yell something and goes off i mean that's without provocation but that's right  witness whether expert or late may provide an opinion on the ultimate issue in a case that case now a standing i don't believe a proper foundation was laid for his testimony as we have  there open the door that's right to these issues i would agree that to some extent if it did open the word soon to testimony however when on on redirect i mean the state had an opportunity that was erial would you open the door for the state then later probe but did they open the door in your judgment as to the ultimate issue of fact in this case and that is was it reasonable to use for car door and not approach i think it would be appropriate for him to say that that an officer should maintain distance and face and that is within the realm of of his his experience of the scope of his knowledge i don't believe it's i mean because he was testifying about the video you have seen the video he also testified that he was not a part of this investigation that he actually wrong on this two points i don't have anything further  i would like to just end by saying that the state has the burden of proof in this case and they neglected to put in the proper testimony thank you very much knew what the job before him was just because he used the term provocation when discussing the i have an instant mean that he applied that standard in fact it was a defense defense in this case that injected that provocation into it and the court was merely responding to that in this closing arguments the defendant was talking about how ronald bell refused to follow commands with refused to go to the ground he started to rise he felt like he was going for it the defendant felt as if he was going for his gun these are all elements of his defense of provocation and in responding to the defense raised by the defendant as it was used in this case by the court was not used as a legal standard it was used as the every day term responding to ronald wouldn't listen to me ronald when gets that got around ronald was rising up ronald was going from my gone i had to do something it's the every day term of provocation that was used in this case not a legal standard the legal standard the court use was a rational analysis there is nothing other than using that term in the generic sense of everyday language that can be pointed to in this record that indicates that the court wasn't aware of what it needed to do in this case reasonable doubt stand you could you could point to many places where the first call commits a crime i'm going to start with the last point which is the baton then you can argue the tasering of the passenger is possibly a crime then you can argue further back as you are with he was not so there is not before but you're asking me what's a crime so we're going to start with the clear an obvious which is the last point time which is before this court and that is using the petang on the driver you can argue that using the taser on the passenger two times was arguably crime hauling the gun out is not ever really behind this car during the stop he activates his lights the quarter never really on the same street this car is driving as if he has no idea anyone's behind him because the defendant really never is behind him he gets into his driveway his home and he gets out of the car just like any other person dilution of a toxic would think that is not the issue here so that means the video could have no chance or the million or it was the real result of a as he was sitting in the seven eleven parking lot and the vehicle is driving down the street you can see the way the vehicles driving and arguably he's driving in a reasonable manner nothing that would justify a stop in this case however we are strained far from the point that we hear up here and that is the actions of the officer  and the time that he took the baton and he struck the stick down fifteen times did you see that's the problem that i have with this case strikes me that perhaps my happened view of this passenger they were both highly intoxicated he found them to be incredible so if we're lucky with just one witness to what happened there it's the officer and he never made a finding that  as you do we do not just have the officers testimony into incredible testimonies of the driver and the passenger we also hear about the brother in the house and we also hear the neighbor who is watching these said that it's important to get into the mind of the defendant to know what his actions were yet he never spoke to the defendant in this case he referred to him as he refers to the baton saying if you use that as a club that's improper but he didn't use it as club here he used it like a piece fault that so therefore it's proper he also not the facts you have in this case you have a driver and a passenger who stopped the car in their driveway of their home and then exit like any other human being what when when he tells them to stop they stop one of them has its hands in the air and nearly the entire time complete confusion on their faces there is not a third individual and till later when he is awakened by all the noise going on outside it is two people confuse an opposite side of the car a what we have in this case but however getting to the second issue of what of having to do with the officers evaluation of of the defendant and his  testimony about his actions being unreasonable he was not called an expert witness that information came out on redirect examination after the defendant questioned him about this officers of valuations and went into detail about facts such as your leadership your training your experience have you ever had anyone ever complain about you therefore indicating that because nobody's ever complained about you you should have that you we have some white video footage of the way he acted in the field let's a bill you weren't that and that's when the officer started going into  we understand the importance  so at the time that he was he was testifying about the use of the baton and whether it was appropriate it was response to what the defendant open up on cross examination to far exceeded what was brought out on see he open the door to the seven s through an evaluation performed by other officers  and the state's case of bands would you agree or not at all it was defendant's case that was advantage because it was bringing out his other officers that he was now relating to the trier of fact about what a great officer this is what's on redirect examination the people simply had him evaluate defendant just as the defendant had during cross examination through the video and asked now were those reasonable actions was that was that a stellar performance was that an out would that receive an outstanding remark would that at let's look at the exact question because i think it's a little different that the question was what do you think officer in there in those personal skills we're talking again about his skills which is it's the subject matter evaluation of his behavior in the field just like it was ok for him to evaluate him on cross examination based on past evaluation prepared by other officers than let's evaluate you based on facts because you i so propound that this was an evaluation just as he was allowed to evaluate on cross examination in a valuating someone you are giving your opinion on how they act he evaluated how he acts on prior occasions through those of opinions given on cross examination and now he's a value waiting what he can see on live video footage all lining of the reasonable  he was allowed to testify before that he acted reasonably all the time when he interacted with the public he was outstanding he was reasonable goes to the general for the good and the peaceful nonviolent evaluating the life footage like you would do you for a written evaluation that could be used in the future and he was doing it in response to the evaluations that were given on the cross examination upward in the use of force continuum would you agree with that the expert also stated that i want to be subtle with you but we have yet to respond of course would you agree with that and reinforcement he should never approached these individuals to begin when he put himself in a position when he was dealing with a passenger where his back was to the right part he clearly wasn't that worried about the driver at that point when he was dealing with the driver he had his back to the passenger there are things that this officer did here that weren't reasonable and also don't support this idea that he was allowed to reach the final u se of force on the continuum also the use of force in this case the use of force that results in death or great bodily harm can only be used in certain situations and that in this case could only be up what's the question well and my response is worse here for the actions against the driver as he's on the ground on his knees with his hands in the air and at times shielding his face that's what on the ground and what all the every common sense juman being thinks they get down on their knees and that's what he did here he got down on his knees when he said get down all the way he gets down into the wrestlers position i mean he's doing what every but the reasonable human being would do words and when you hear of someone for a traffic offense who's in their own driveway on their knees with their hands in the air and then shielding their face as somebody is wielding a baton over their had and striking most full force that's not reasonable well the that's not what we as a society should expect in a situation  but we know what i did see is in adult me on with a metal the time raising it over his had and striking down on a man who's on his knees with this look i disagree with you what that evidence in the record shows is that the brother comes out and tries to bring a voice of reason in a voice a camera and says he doesn't understand what's going out and he had to physically show him how to get down on the ground what it was that was the expectation here because when you say get down on the ground getting down on your knees to many people means i'm down on the ground  nervous i mean i would think of it there would be a reasonable expectation that he might be in some danger i would agree with that i definitely would agree with that i find it significant that you have these two people that he he's in fear o on opposite sides of the car so it's a little bit going to be a little bit hard for them to tag team and attack on this police officer president oxidized the car one of them has his hands in the air most every second of this  if you're talking about the driver the driver and it is it is interjecting see what's going on with his hands in the air in a non threatening mode in terms of attacking the police officer and also important is that as the officer dealt with each individual he was unaware of the actions of the other person he had no idea what that driver was doing when he was dealing with their p s a journey and no idea what their passenger was doing when he was dealing with the driver because he wasn't that concerned driver oh he testified about feeling as if his arms and his back were broken if you just strictly listen to the doctor and her who were not evaluating him for a concussion however any time anyone takes a blow to the had you honestly have to think about concussion or we can think structural there for that one issue and in terms of whether the governance is closely balanced and the complaining about their expert opinion the defendant brought in their own x burke who testif to this very point and then stop and then stop he wasn't just testifying about how police officer in the situation should be doing this and should be doing that what he was talking about also came to the ultimate conclusion those were the words of stuck with me and and then viewing the video with that in mind it all makes sense that the words that's what the court said cross court also listened to all of the evidence in the case that included the testimony of the brother who was inside the house viewing than some of the neighbor who was viewing the events unfold and was so disturbed by what he was seeing that he ran over to try to stop the events  has actions or reason and i argue that you don't have the evidence to do that because he didn't give you that i'm it was much more than just a video in this case a video with two minutes from state present at the trial court found incredible the testimony of the driver and the pastor he said that they were drunk that they were they were complying they were trying in our home and that they were motivated by their lawsuit against the village stream which he just kind of their testimony the two bystanders who testified also said the driver was not complying they could see he was