The case I chose was people vs Lance Williams, which was fought on 19th nov,2020. The argument was based on whether defendant Mr.william’s control over gun that he used as self defense is under temporary lawful possession or not.So basically in the scenario, mr.william sees a guy named Carson outside of building, who he thought was following him.Then he went upstair and asked for safety from foe and his girlfriend, he claimed he believe Carson is in lobby waiting for him and he’s armed so foe gave his gun to defendant that helped him to go in lobby and use it if its needed. But when defendant entered in the lobby, he started shooting before even checking Carson out.The representer of defandant claimed that he has all his reason to prove that his using of gun was under temporary lawful possession because he believed he was in imminent danger,.and he can use gun as self protection. When the representer of state argued, that the moment defendant cleared that he wasn’t certain about Carson whereabouts but he just believed that he was there, defendant action will not have any lawful excuse. Therefore  he occupied somebody else’s gun and used it for blank shooting in a danger manner considered as illegal action.

According to me, Mr.william can’t use somebody else gun under this situation because he wasn’t in danger, it was more like he believed he is in danger. From feeling the imminent danger to shooting people in lobby was just based on his assumption that Carson will hurt him. When he himself said in testimony that he didn’t know where was Carson. He can use gun as self defense only if the person really in-front of him and made him a target. However beside the case swiping mode,The only Thing I found interesting is in argument is actually about the conversation process, it was very specific in certain clips that judge wanted yes or no for some question but the lawyer just can’t pick up one so he added another case to cover him up, which I found very intelligent. From the start it was very clear that defendant representer mr.briggs were very determined on proving his client’s innocence but then the state did a turning point with its rebuttal and it actually persuaded how defendant action from the start wasn’t right itself and then after shooting incident occured, how he tried to have potential confrontation by throwing away the main evidence.Even though the defendant side tried to explain it wasn’t anything like that but still it wasn’t enough persuasive.