and to the need to prove that he endangered the by the safety of an individual in doing so for me the state of the crew on both of those elements here as to the first elements of recklessness purposes of this offense is the fire and as a shooting their firearms into the air or to their senior firearms into the ground by in the dirt in the direction of a person in order to scare or intimidate that person away from them as to the first factual scenario  reckless but just what they did in her dissent make a great point and that was that the legislature did not make any discharge of a firearm in a residential area a crime but rather obviously it is a reckless even testified and lost his head lost control and shot his political in his home well that's obviously different this is not inside it's not a toilet bowl full of balls of course typically porcelain this was shooting at the grass and  i would just go into the second briefly the speculation we have is that should this cause disagree and say no we think that was reckless destruction we still argue and actually reiterate that the relief for requesting for that first issue was that this court reverse underneath the ground in the originals backyard that is not something that the general public would know that's something that comes from private knowledge or private facts and certainly was not going to evidence so as a result of that and argue that this court should if it disagrees with us on issue one still cases involving substantial of the officers testified that when you don't know what's buried underneath a yard and a yard is just a yard or the company has houses not prepared for shooting the danger exists because of not knowing what's underground they testified that it could be rocks it could be concrete it could be at anything metal anything underneath that bullet can strike and ricochet off so the risk is that the risk is in the not knowing what's there so are they going to hit someone i have there or not every time if a person merely points a gun at another i say that's probably the most analogous case from within watkins pointing a gun at another if you don't fire at no one is going to get hurt but the risk that it could go off was not knowing what was in the ground that could create a ricochet that created the wrist so when the judge says yeah well there's things that are underground so there could be or as i think he is a man that  come come from fields but i think that the judge found that if it were i in the woods it would have been different if they were just blanks it would have been different so i don't know i don't know if you've been hinged  score both and there none of those bullets struck anyone there is no evidence that any of those horrible it was headed towards anyone's direction he specifically said he wasn't shooting at anyone and wasn't trying to hurt anybody but it was it was the possibility that one of those  celebration and to answer your question i think sure the purpose does come into play we know that because in those cases where the finishing towards the ground in the direction of another person without being in fear of his life well that's that's right plus you can't