wheel and on foot. so we had hashed that out, i thought. i understand mr. west didn't think any of it is credible or right. respectfully, that's up to the jury, not mr. west. so the issue is i think the provocation language should be included. the only issue that i hear is whether or not it also ought to on top of the issue of provocation include the phrase force or threat of force. and again, carrying a firearm or grabbing or accosting to the point that someone hears let go and a physical struggle, that is evidence of force or threat of force. it doesn't say -- gibbs certainly doesn't say deadly force because of course gibbs is itself a nondeadly force case in the first instance. so the state's argument is the