contested that flattened cutting edge was only two in seventy seven inch and that was it so that's not enough for mr c to be convicted dead you know that's capable of cutting you know what we're talking about this nun cutting part is simply a part that normally if you're you know whether it's a kitchen knife or a pocket knife or anything else it's a place where you place your index finger to control the blade better i'm so this is a dagger it's not something that has to break you know a great on either side on both sides and this is something we're going to have one cutting edge and it's a too much like a kitchen knife or anything else and it's not again this is not contraband outside of publicly funded buildings so it's something that's which intimate they have outside of th you have a butter knife if you have maybe the flattened cutting edge and you measure that again i don't think most but a nice would be had one you know much like that knife in this case i don't think the blade would be in excess of three inch of this but it is possible that the footing to flatten cutting edge if he had a complaint about animal cruelty and hits spoken with one of the officers work in the building before but they found his dress and his you know his language a little bit funny and so they arrested him i'm so there really wasn't anything about the knife that was any is many things that are illegal outside of the listener a but illegal once you enter the dealer center so that based on their testimony we know that this was commonplace that you know if they weren't so concerned that they arrested every one of these people in fact the test flight normally they again they either something back to their believe it makes a big difference in this case i mean there wasn't really anything about this pocket knife that was unusual mr siegel wasn't making any threats he has no history of violence there wasn't any really really reasons for arrest him this is similar to the officer asking me for speeding and terms of whether it was in his pocket or it is a backpack you honestly regardless of whether was in the pocket of the backpack it's certainly possible that he didn't go in the possess it in the state doesn't have that burton though you know that the state didn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed it when this is one of the central issues liability but you know looking at what is what happened here and this is so it would be even though this is a misdemeanor statute we know that it's not absolute liability because this was punishable by incarceration and if you look at the types of offenses where we do case that people do forget this is specially pocketknives you know and again it's a legitimate tool but it that people use for a number of reasons and the record was preserved even though he's acting pro se mr ascites who is intelligent enough to say i have to prove knowingly i didn't knowingly do it and then the instruction that we used the word make widgets instead knowing the only spin court reversed because the drug wasn't held to the task of finding the mental state now at least in that case they had a mental state though you know here we just had absolutely ability you know they didn't have any mens rea a requirement but again you're on a state of the jury deliberated for two days and again but i don't think there's any real debate here that the traumas knowingly based on the statutes in this case because it's based on people versus farmer and based on the fact the i p s included the word knowingly and they have for thirty there isn't much wiggle room in terms of what the statutes and the you know they that case it case law states but trying to public policy and your point you know if it was that big of a deal to that the officers of the only center they would be sending everybody to this storage area you know and they didn't  did it's just sudden not something you know something is guaranteed by law and something he didn't receive so you know all of the public policy considerations you know that the biggest thing here is that there is one of the two big governments or criminal case that they didn't have to prove and that the while we focusing on cutting in on page seventeen of the defense opening brief he specifically tries to exclude stabbing is an option however the statute itself doesn't include knifes for the sole purpose of cutting the plain language of the statute includes i did such as still waters switchblades axes hatchets or other data they are dangerous weapons or instruments of light character so there is no need to have it confined in narrow definition of a knife there's no need to have somebody parsing out a map of a knife and saying well this person looks like it could be used to enter but it can't proceed any further just as when also you commented if a defendant were to make an entry into a victim with a knife it's not going to stop just because that portion of the blade is dull he would follow all the way through until that knife and tears all the way up into the hilt or even past so what is the common sense definition the common sense definition is in knife as to component parts a handle and a blade how do we know that when we look at what happened in this case we had two different officers who saw the knife and measured it both of them measured the knife in the same way came to the same conclusion and that is the knife blade was three hundred feet it's inches long they measured than if they came to the same conclusion to determine this was provided by the statue there was a question about whether why was defendant brought up why was defendant the person that happened to be unlucky enough to get arrested this wasn't a case about animal cruelty o being dressed weirdly defended in we killed it he was on his way up to the sheriff's office he'd been able to talk to the sheriff he was armed with a knife and said i'm here to see somebody about saddam eyes in my cats this isn't your run of the militarization between the citizen and a member  security team at the daily center this is somebody who was intending to go someplace and was armed with a weapon but based upon those conclusion it is a pocket knife all right i mean so it's not like it's not a hitler purchased a knife that was next with three inches blade you can't say well because there's more greed just knives out there somehow i'm less culpable the legislature is taking a stand to say this is the dividing line i guess knowing only you  would the knowing the question comes about basically because the parties are preparing jury instructions the state first recommended that the jury instruction to be modified because it didn't include the phrase public lands so raw counsel commenting these instructions have been in existence for close to thirty years they were not an accurate statement of law at least to that fact so the circuit court was question we need to modify the i p s there is no objection to including the term ok judgment reason to keep place is a public access and there are a fair say it's not just universities and school campuses in the sixty's they're in rebellion this is the day to day building where courts judges lawyers all these people work on a daily basis do we want people armed with again it's a very narrow list of people big comes with rifles pistols shotguns and then you get down into a certain subset of stabbing or knives such as thirty stagger switchblades legislatures crafted  very small list of weapons that are for lack that are free is dangerous weapons or instruments which can be used causing great harm so with then we look at ok there's a state of public policy we have a limited amount of weapons that are being targeted and we have a to try to glean what the jury was hung up on in this case with the speculation the defendant put forth an approach that he had a second amendment right to carry not only this knife but a firearm that does that at the question is you have you had a jury that the discussion that yours has show you you are absolutely correct if the statute includes a no a mental component and in this case is the people specific that it doesn't have that component because of the fact that you do have limited amount of punishment basically as it is a mystery or offense because there is a public policy goal of keeping public places safe we can say that this was an absolute liability affects equates to a lack of mental state they say on those occasions where the statute is silent they will presume a mental state unless there is an that you can follow along based upon legislative procedure language of the statue or this case look at the going to sign another absolute liability offense that is not already attached to a felony where you get three hundred sixty more days in jail for something you didn't know you did you have the criminal case would we want to let trial horse modify the idea to remove an element that was put in by the criminal i can't commit and this case now especially in a case like law to make sure that the jury has the right thing the only thing they're allowed to do in this case is a convict them because there's no question at the end of the day it was us the night in the night as i think and i hear he didn't know and so now the laws at the  fact that the posture that this case is presented in doesn't visit the fact that if this is an absolute liability offense which people submit that it is that doesn't prevent this but from say it's an absolute liability offense the defendant happened to have tried his own case it happens to have chosen rule made by the circuit court preventing that defense is it is somehow harsh the question is whether or not the legislature intended to create an absolute liability offense the question of whether or not and the evidence you have of that your argument based on it the fact you didn't say anything about right is that this is an absolute liability offense correct to the defendant even focuses on this brief that there wasn't a proviso in the statute which says this isn't it this is an absolute liability law and so we require that that's never been held to be a requirement for this court has language which has been so indicated to say in the absence of a specific intent provision the court may interpret that and add a mental state it's never been held an element of offense although he expressed language of the provisions of writing that the offense fails describe such now and there's one to say the second part of such a four point nine expresses the policy that any other offenses not including a mental state and the that there's an interest in preventing people from bringing in weapons into a courthouse that does make it absolutely ability your honour's we have an interest in every criminal statute in the state of illinois but as you know there's a very small number of statutes primary tool that these chords are only chords used to interpret these terms the steelers and offered a single definition of the contrary and then briefly just to address a couple of the comments by the state in terms of him being concerned about cat sodomy s so this but also the testimony by the officers you know they did me good on cross examination that they included this noncoding person in that measurement so that there is no issue factual issue here so it in terms of the first issue again we