is that what how he pronounces it that is my understanding from going to trial attorney who handled already so the two issues deal with two south carolina statutes one is the assault beaten one and an officer while resisting arrest which  supreme court has provided guidance in its joining us also this case that the courts are to look to the state court cases on the issue the issue is straight forward we have to find out what south carolina does with that how they address assault and i said whether it's a crime of violence or not that's interactive and i can tell you as at the outset i read about six or eight south carolina they just cut through it and then you can address it when they address assault and define it they always use the word injury violent injury but then when they talk about assault and battery they say it includes the possibility of spitting which probably is not violence then when they talk about assault as the stink from assault and battery the exact they are different and they give them different definitions they go back to the  implication is that maybe assault hasta offer a more serious violence than just a touching as a battery in other words if i started to approach you to kiss you on the cheek that would not be an assault because it's not violent injury but when it comes to a natural battery it includes any touching now that these cases don't seem to all be totally consistent but that is where what i found and you can now argue what we should do with that ok well i would start with the assault i think assault has long been fact the davis case that i cited in the briefs has long been found to not be violent south carolina because or offered to commit a violent injury upon the person of another coupled with the present ability to complete the attempt or offered by about that's the definition that would seem to suggest it's a crime of violence then they say it differs from assault and battery in that there is no touching of the victim therefore it is the clear it is clear that assault with intent to kill may not be traumatizing assault and batter so they seem to be making a difference between assault and assault and battery but that goes against the notion that assault is usually the offer to commit a battery and a battery is traditionally includes touching so are you can try to resolve this for me but it looks if you just take the definition this is been cited probably six eight ten times this definition assault is defined as an almost full attempt or offer to commit a violent injury look at that is something that i've heard repeatedly quoted from south carolina law but what i usually do not see quoted along with that in this post directly from one of the cases that states that it's a state versus last five three  right i mean this court has said and i believe it's in the ban case that if the intermediate or has made a ruling that the supreme court hasn't directly addressed this working consider it is unless they think the supreme court well let me just show you up the once you get to the bathroom that's pretty clear and does not meet the johnsons typos i think so it seems to me that's that's the supreme court case is that seems clear cut to me that's the that they are the salt is if i words and conduct a person intentionally creates a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm it isn't assault now that's the same case he's talking about that's why i'm saying they're speaking out of both sides of their mouth are if you take a very logical and formulaic common law is ition assault is usually an offer to commit a battery and a battery is any touching offense of touching or whatever and that wouldn't satisf the kind of curriculum approach which is to go to the elements that south carolina law financed by well i think that in terms of what you have to look at which has been and i don't see that when you're looking at means i mean this court has said you know alternate means there are irrelevant to the analysis you have to look at the elements so they were grouped together as one element this with different means and in him anyway there were violent is violent but again with being convicted under the fact of spitting which has to satisfy the elements of this assault and and the statute if you consider spitting on someone of battery then i don't think that the correct that i would i would say that hemingway is certainly a very similar case i believe i addressed that in the in the reply agree there's one more issue of this stuff threat to inflict harm or take the life of a what i can say is that we all have the government i have both agree this is a not a visible statute and you can't just ignore the fact that bodily harm inflicting bodily harm is part of this statute and the only guidance that i could find as what i've been in the may please the court will lewis on behalf of the united states and just to go straight to just me in march question about salts in south carolina i want to be very clear on our position that simple assault force or attempted that while resisting arrest would not be read that saul in the context of the second two words beat a woman and this follows with actually the structure of the statute where we have a misdemeanor vision along provision because in south carolina simple battery or simple simple assault and battery to it again it's on a secondary source if you will but it talks about the delineation between use and not using force and how that punished under the statute then it goes there's various hypotheticals including one where an individual puts his hands up that sachin is divided into a misdemeanor or a felony provision the only distinction whether it's a public official or public employee the threat revisionists he was also convicted of in the malicious injured personal property involving the breaking of bla in the context of two different means which elevate the level of force involved in  on activated nature not the crime violence and outwards controls if we have an assault battery what do you make of the south carolina supreme court statement the explanation would be this i would think in this pretty obvious one is that since assault does not involve touching but is just an offer the all has to be of a more serious in a journo order to punish where is it with a battery if you mcgeady the crime of assault has long been defined as the almost full of attempt to offer to commit a violent injury on the person of another coupled with the president of the military to complete the attempt or offer by batter whil the spinning part which car for his that isn't a violent act that's the act that's the most innocent conduct here and how is that not a battery or do you do i get my point where do you find a case where they define assault to then you're going to have to take all the facts and the government tried to lay out some of those other facts which judge can properly add into more how you why you get them to it his response was simply because you get him into it well i would just refer to what the p