¶1(concurring).
¶2I concur in the affirmance of this conviction, but because of the peculiar facts involved feel impelled to state my reasons.
¶3The question of unlawful arrest is not in this case. Appellants did not testify that they thought they were being arrested and did not assert that they thought the persons pursuing and shooting them were officers.
¶4This is not a narcotics case where contraband is found either on the person or in the accused’s automobile. The officers did not need to search for the shotguns and the pistol because the evidence conclusively established the presence of such weapons in appellants’ automobile.
¶5Appellants readily admitted the possession and the firing of the guns. Such testimony was part of their defensive theory in this assault with intent to murder case.
¶6The question in this case is not whether the officers were acting within the scope of their authority in making the arrest. The sole question presented by this record is whether or not appellants were acting within their right of self-defense against the *931strangers who they thought were attacking them.
¶7This issue was properly submitted and answered adversely to them by the jury.
¶8I concur.