me some trial crossing the street to be hit by this car before a construction comes into my no your honor in fact the language of the statute doesn't require that either it only block and i have to you know quickly fix that first of all these are all people who are by definition video the police at this time which already brings it into somewhat high don't know but any certainty that that is an actor a california but if that in fact was part of the rationale behind the statute that in itself indicate there's inherent dangers of the invasive and i was unable to locate perhaps you but i was unable to locate any california to which there's a prosecution for a minimal non dangerous thing like going half a block on a reverse of a high rate of speed near an elementary school and that doesn't sound minimal to me but i think you may have a different interpretation are there any other cases that you cite you know your honor neither you nor the government have been able to locate any an example suppose this statute is said that while you're fleeing the police if you shoot a firearm out the window it's a separate crime and it's an aggravating factor would you have to demonstrate that people actually get also because it doesn't say and by the way we are saying this because there's a risk of injury that's correct your honor and there are numerous cases that the governor has actually added illustrate this point  again it was not my question i was not my question please answer my question if we decide to follow the seventy circuit case how would this case in these issues immigration issues would you nationwide to have some consistency among the certain sniffs no how would you argue that we shouldn't do fall of the th circuit now it is flight and in fact non driving conduct and the unusual aspect was this string of three traffic violations that involved not drive there didn't even involve driving conduct these are all registration traffic that always places overseas involves a substantial risk to human lives which is reprehensible and therefore it is a crime involving moral the scent of hit and run with injury to another person so we don't know exactly what happened because we don't look beyond the criminal record but we do know that the same time he was convicted of driving in traffic with the same course of conduct he was also convicted of injury to another person and this is in fact very typical with these vehicular flights from police statutes unfortunately the even the statute of of california case law shows it has been charged along with nd degree murder because even when you're driving us traffic for a brief moment you can turn the corner and swerve into the other lane and kill somebody  rested upon nothing more than the least of the acts criminalize clotheshorse so it doesn't matter whether you are or are are had a child according to this case apparently what we do is decide whether or because of this particular form of vehicle or flight quote for effect because of the risks involved in this type of flight from police and that is also a question judge gilman question to petition or it was also a policy of police at the time at least i'm not sure they would have to break off the pursuit because of the dangers involved so there's so many so much well i understand your argument and i don't mind the argument because it makes a lot of logic in lot of sense that how would you how do you interpret this effectively that the conviction argument would be that if nothing more happened than that for fifteen or twenty yards and came back that there would still be a violation yes that's correct but the lea risk of harm if the conduct presents a substantial risk of harm to human life and that is reprehensible conduct you don't have to have an actual injury or an intent to injure but if the statute categorically prescribes a type of conduct that always presents a substantial risk to human life and that is reprehensible as the california legislature described it's like firing a gun down a crowded street you are taking that risk with just inherently dangerous conduct so every violation of this statute always presents a risk to human life whether it's for brief moment where swerving in the other lane just seems a risk that something will be there something could come around the corner be over a hill under a hill you never know everything's happening very quickly now isn't dissipating these types of actions and that's why that's why again the california in actually especially because of the horrific risk involved  supreme court described this particular form of driving against traffic as inherently dangerous so everybody always in the statute would include that level of danger and as justice judge let out only twenty minutes before and the petitioner was driving in the driving conduct occurred three blocks away and the court emphasized the danger that was involved even in that violation of the statute by its element not a realistic possibility involving moral t all right this court for th