In the argument I observed about the People v. Lance Williams case taken place on November 2020, each party had questions and arguments as to why the defendant claimed his possession of a gun was “temporary and lawful” because he held it for a short time and he believed he was in imminent danger. One party had an argument where he said, “I’m struggling with the difference between having a gun legally and or else having an illegally obtained gun that you used in a legal manner.” The attorney has a follow up on his earlier argument that there was a safe disposal as to how the weapon was lawfully obtained. Defendant receives the weapon and events are happening so quickly to process. Williams had every right to believe that he would be in danger for Carson it was completely relevant and lawful with circumstances and under the court’s cases involving situations where a weapon being obtained for self defense at a moment where self defense is imminent and it’s about to happen and that’s what happened.

From what I observed each party had their take on the case and expressed how they felt about it in form of questions. I found each point every party made interesting rather surprising because it opens my eyes more to possible discussions in court. I thought that the judges and lawyers conducted themselves well. The arguments about safe disposal, imminent danger, and having obtained a gun were most persuasive because points they made to answer questions would always go back to the main arguments.