because essentially in self defense it's the famous perception of the scenario that is most important and particularly here for the the nd degree reason to listen and respond the sort of defendant's belief testimony because the juries addressing both rather hamilton's belief is true because the state's training closing is he committed he knew the standard was for self defense you know i thought he's going to shoot me and so he says i think he's going to shoot she he's essentially the brother in law of the victim he knows him very well what else does he have to know about the situation about victor that colors his perception you know there's there's nothing however any kind of gun that he ever did i think it depended his response to the question why did you think he what you think he was fixing to shoot you and the he had some kind of gun would have changed the jury's mind as far as the state of mind as far as his the reasonableness of his belief that she was going to be shot because as we saw her coming out correct and and part of this is just discerning from the record the strategy that happened to seek out so beginning in the opening statement he says towards the end of his opening argument should hamilton have shot johnson you know the jury's ability to make a judgment about hamilton and it cuts down the argument that council which i think that the court accepted was that you know this is just brilliant the victim there was a he's in a game it wasn't the seeds you know frightened people with the guy it was just the fact that he carried a gun which is as it was put on the record we don't know if it was legal or illegal or you know good about the gun there's nothing you know unseemly about carrying a gun if someone is approaching you and you just had a fight and you think you see a gun and you know the person carries a gun that's where it has its effect i  arguments by counsel the judge made a decision that decision would normally be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard but in this case it's not even change it's not even contested on appeal as being wrong and that's improvements from looking at the record in this case made proper choices and that's right this is a difficult issue for direct appeal because defense argument is really one of comes down to i have a i have a better way to go argument that could have been made that well but i don't know for shows was a very aggressive defense attorney trying to represent his client to the best of the ability under the facts which included eye witnesses which includes a video which included  rubric of the court's discretion you admit the crew has the authority to decide what is and what is not admissible better and better the evidence is being speculate over conjectural that's and that's what happened here is the judge found least  testimony when the dr specifically asked what is the basis well she know the defense attorney says she can't say but she may have seen him with a gun that's that's it without any more specific think that there is a distinction is typical in most cases between late testimony about what they see in scientific findings by an expert like a medical examiner or someone else regarding a particular term that are used and so i not so certain and i apologise for not being rude about this but i'm not certain that there is any real discrepancy between those two evelyn passably a different understanding of terminology between a lay person and that sort but if there is no furthe strategy for the for the evidence that's not so good attorneys that are you know making reasonable decisions to your own and to the argument about the offer of proof the undevelopment of the record i think at best that only defeats robinson's testimony attempt to do it and the record itself as i said before this is better allowed me on the at the appellate we understand where his knowledge would be coming from well there is no attempt for him to say oh i saw him yesterday with a gun or i knew that he was a gay member