>> 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!