It wasn't a valid argument for her to pop off like that. >> Popping off. >> Okay. But what did you see happening besides her popping off? Like physically, what' you What did you see? >> She started swinging. >> Okay. Okay. >> Huh? She got upset. >> You willing to go down You willing to go downtown to sign charges? >> Uh, charges. >> I really don't want to do that. >> What do you want done today? >> I'm sorry. >> What do you want done today? >> She can't be here. >> Okay. Uh, give us You can hop back in if you need to hop back in. >> What do you think could have been done better today? >> Um, her not putting her hands on me and that's that. >> You think maybe your aggressive way of talking? >> No, because we argued definitely no fault of hers. the suspect may not have thrown the first punch and that's absolutely fine because also through the investigation she sounds like she is the most angry, the loudest um that she she closed the distance. So she created her own jeopardy by closing that distance in in that aggressive manner that would that a normal person would interpret as a as a a pre-fight indicator. Okay, this person's coming at me to hurt me. And then they use physical retaliation to create distance, but if the primary aggressor hadn't closed that distance angrily, if they just would have stayed on opposite sides of the room, none of this would have happened. So although she may not have thrown [clears throat] the the first punch, it doesn't mean that she's not guilty still as as the primary aggressor in causing the majority of the the disturbance that was there.