to describe where we are from fossilization and if i have time both respected resisting arrest and so on battery on a police officer and i have time i to go back to an issue about having about preservation of the government took the position so did the defendant and to the i r s that the statute was the visit and i think that's also significant which is not the case here because in terms of the harmful in terms of the reckless aspect of it there's also case law that says in massachusetts that to us that consider that says that i and they said well that's true that's there's a law like that and there's no doubt that there is looking at the questions on that the court requested supplemental briefing ron we were arguing that we do argue that undermanned is resisting arrest is indeed visible as the government has has argued and that therefore it is categorically not a violent felony and we look at that through the manner in means versus element analysis elements are something that requires a we have acquired through finding and unanimity which is what the virus also said is now the definition of an element and that the court was implicitly dividing the statute because there's really no discussion of divisibility these cases preceded but they come certainly is johnson forrest johnson one force none of the cases addressed whether the force required under promise one of massachusetts resisting arrest is violent under johnson one and johnson one defines it not only is force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person but that it connotes a substantial degree of force great physical for th does not constitute the kind of violent force used against the person of a number that is required for were the violent felony under johnson one said it simply so to the extent that b that manus discussed force under the first consisting or asked that that also would no longer and massachusetts appeals courts decisions saying that your unanimity is not required for either problem which again in our view would make the offense into this will realize that horace has said that there we're addressing a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and that the language used in the end is different from the use of physical force against the person of another language that is used in one section sixteen to sort of the way it was documents is consistent with reckless conduct a reasonable possibility cannot be shown of a different result on player view and therefore the conviction can be affirmed the alternative route would be to consider the divisibility of the two intentional forms which we argue are all is also divisible we needed somewhat different analysis but we believe the analysis of the virus also supports a finding of disability between the so called offensive and home for forms of  does have to be instructed on specific unity and essentially those are two things one is there sort of a conceptual or so since you difference or just similarity between the different crimes the second is whether there are real consequences or additional factors that flow from that i mean and they can you know again this is the struggle this led to the problem of the met this is trying to stall on any give us a set of factors to look at and then look at it you know whether it's language documents shepherd documents and other you know