agreed that s the standard language. okay. so i think we have were there any other requested changes or additions to this instruction by the state? as it relates to the justifiable use of deadly force? correct. again, having already argued and simply relying again on the case of johnson versus state, which is also in the packet regarding the provocation instruction, no, your honor. any other being requested by the defense other than the ones i ve already ruled on? within the justifiable use instruction? yes, yes, sir. no, your honor. then the next one. we have, the defense has another o one you just included in your packet, the state s proposed instruction on justifiable use, is that correct? i did, just for comparison purposes. thank you. okay team!