did indicates that he should have known he would cause a breach of the peace again based on the facts here he's left a message of the school he's calling back by to minister here and indeed and the fifteen to twenty minute conversation where there's no yelling there's no threat he's asking about school security there's nothing in the fact that initially he should have known he was causing a breach of the peace so the state didn't reached the pm since i've never seen a breach of the peace where somebody with a flashing red sign walked up and down front of me same breach of peace breach of peace it's a of metaphysical conclusion or assumption or judgement based upon the totality of the circumstances it would be a shame is whether or not a breach of the peace occurs should be measured by what a reasonable person would conclude or is it and therefore if it's a reasonable person it's not a question of whether the administrator was alarmed even though there are some ambiguity as to whether or not she thought when i asked the question was she alarmed personally for her own personal safety or was for which she alarmed by the totality of the circumstances in so far as whether or not the school was in jeopardy and since she was related to being  you have our teachers when they say no they really should because it reduces the casualties and he's giving his opinion about what reasonable school security is no reasonable person should have known that they would cause recent piece by having a phone conversation how the school secure it regardless of the words used and i think that goes back to my first point which is at the end of the day regardless of the outcome here regardless of what what she thought when the police stop what they did when they came to his house this is just a conversation that's just words sauce being expressed there's no threat it can't be criminal not pass through this thread is that subject to interpretation and if so is it subjective or reasonable person would ask a reasonable person all effect was there but here it was found it wasn't a threat and i think even if you look at the words even if was that she believed she said you know there's a discrepancy between what she believes she said the only part that even approaches something concerning here when she said he said if something happens to these children the initially so i strongly disagree with the notion that there was nothing stretch threatening in the phone call whether we consider it you know plus a threat ye included the defendant reminding that we see what we have been perceiving into the statements that there had just been a man shooting must know we before it involved discussions of children dying and they rest of it to call it a discussion of a school system security is clearly sanitizing the nature of the actual call become hands were extremely disturbing and any rational person within the surrounding circumstances would have been disturbed and it did in fact cause a breach of the peace in that the police were called and again the trial court's characterizations of there were interesting of the conversation would be disturbing to anyone but someone within the administration of a grammar school that has two hundred children present and the defendant this talking about has to go area with the surrounding woods which is why she was concerned it was someone who actually was on the campus the first amendment didn't have to protect this type of speech and the statute requires proof that was provided were as a defense curator as did the discussion about school security just about a year ago in florida there was a terrible school shooting where seventeen people were killed if i were a parent to a high school in the syria i can totally imagine calling the school and saying you heard about part two and what what steps are you changing to prepare for something like this if i was talking to my cousins who live in shower and so to share a high school which is not far from the police department he have ongoing security in the parking lots to the police department to come through several times a day to make sure there are no to no intruders i know in the city of chicago some of the schools have actually physical presence of police officers in and metal detectors the doors i think and again i think that the shooters pointing a gun at their teacher do you understand that even percent of shooters reasonable but in fact under a reasonable person standard was not reasonable and it was within a ministry or in a school that had two hundred grammar school children present so i think when this court was earlier just because things went to our standard our standard is what does a reasonable person do within certain surrounding circumstances this defendant's behavior here was unreasonable in  it was rendered even less reasonable because it was a grammar school and again i think the trial court properly characterized it this was this was the analogy to the yelling fire in the crowded school or if your honor said it was the only shooter in the school this was entirely unreasonable and the trial court i think did not give him inconsistent verdict the the three counts and the defendant was guilty of this count again based on the elements of the  study the blood of the children is on their hands so what are they supposed to do or are they supposed to discount the statement because what he said was or might be true if in fact they paid no attention to what is said believes when they're taking the action that mr swenson tough because again as a result person who's making these statements were they communicating a threat that they would expect would cause a breach of the peace here this discussion and he did express displeasure that they didn't have the security he wanted to happen and he was trying to convince them if you do these things you can reduce casualties because you or not threats but they are very bizarre and they put you on notice that these people are not normal and they put you on notice that these people need to be paid attention to something some response needs to be made and if the things they say or think it's reality is bizarre enough it will cause you some serious concern but if so your argument about this isn't a threat to me somewhat misses the mark because maybe unfortunately that hasn't been my experience so when you when you talk only about threats i think you should be in the are sure little bit more and suggest that nothing that was said here was bizarre or them or something in need of serious consideration review and possible reporting to appropriate authorities of this person can be if they are arrested may be committed i'm not saying the schools wrong for calling the police they can call the police every day and we can say once that's fine it doesn't mean a crime is committed here because we can't criminalize speech if it's now threatening he didn't do anything