we missed the last thirty seconds of your of your speaking if you could repeat yourself so the judge yes the stump horn last year the supreme court held state supreme court seven trip or the iraq brewery statutes despite the similarities in language differently and as as i see it your client's problem is with the new hampshire supreme court's decision in good room which doesn't decay that new hampshire requires a greater degree of force then does massachusetts all mean well we disagree with we think th attorney i'm sorry judge it seems that he may be frozen or permanently this time or we can remove him from the meeting and attorney shapiro can you hear me we can now for a minute we pause for about twenty to a little bit hard to construe but there seems to be a reference that the handbags snatcher is not covered by the statu that's right then that does seem to make it a very different statute then the massachusetts one of these are aces of seem to emphasize that if it picks up just the person who snatches the purse they out of the hands that would be enough to create awareness but that's not enough to be violent or something more than that's necessary but if this statute excludes the handbag snatcher then it seems to be quite different from the massachusetts st that's your position at least as i understand it that that would hurt you because if the hit if the handbag snatcher is covered when the person is aware of the handbag snatching in other words they're aware of the force  if the north used to snatch the handbag is merely force of a kind that could make you aware of it then it doesn't then it's a problem but if it's if it is it seems a little bit redundant i just don't fully understand how it how you're construing what force would mean in the statute in your example with respect to the handbags that we sent you there was a telephone number do you have that are home grown near ok i'm going to remove your video from the meeting i'm sorry judge i hope that we get him right back and as soon as he gets an hour with i'll admit him as a as a telephone call that you're who snatches the purse and the victim is not aware of this snatching the new hampshire statute doesn't cover it but a person out your who does use force to commit the saft and that the victim is aware of the staffed that then that would be covered by the statute and i just want to call your attention force that he uses now we are as this court said in starks a robbery statute only requires force sufficient to make the victim aware of the sest it may involve no more the statute but maybe you could know this question for me in in ellison we said that the right way to construe the statute or at least a summary statute with respect to imitate intimidation would be that the understand it you're saying that the knowledge of engaging in that risk is baxley is at the mens rea of mens rea or with respect to the rest i meant three of recklessness with respect to the rest and that's not enough under our cases when we rejected recklessness as an up of a mens rea we gave the example of the states that shoot which would hold you to have committed the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon because of your reckless conduct in drunk driving and at least my understanding as we emphasize that the known victim of taking that risk was very diffuse you weren't doing it against anyone and statute refers to against and defining violent felony or kind of violence of humor exactly the term and that to a great weight in our analysis here when you're intimidating somebody in committing a bank robbery it's quite clear against whom you are exercising the action that intimidates them so while it might be reckless of you rather than intentional to put them in fear of bodily harm there's no question against whom you're doing it that wrapping drugs from the hands of a pharmacist would be sufficient under the statute you were to close the inclusion necessary and that would resubmit not necessarily require the specific intent well it is true that there is a more defined person here but it's by the same token there's somebody in charge rich driving equally be charged when there is a specific victim involved in the drunk driving whether it be a victim of the nothing in new hampshire case law which he knew anyway adopt one incorporates the notion that the defendant has to overcome the resistance well of the victim and  requires this court to apply stoping versus united states to the new hampshire robbery statute i think just became clear from the prior prior discussion and it was a harder case when it was before the district court because  not been decided so this was decided only with the glocks of the st johnson case but i think stokely makes this case more straightforward stoping said that common law a robbery is e c c a viol you hampshire common in new hampshire robbery is common law robbery and there are multiple ways we can know that st the legislative history expressly says this was an him for robbery statute was an attempt to caught a common law  makes it different from massachusetts and maine have rather robbery statutes that legislative history goes on to discuss what is an is not robbery and it specifically says that the statute does not the pickpocket who knowing the tax that is the is not enough there's yanking the chain where the use of force is sufficient to overcome resistance that is enough then there's snatching the purse from the hand which is not enough to overcome resistance but is enough to make you aware of what happened so and that is not enough so the question for me in this case is in new hampshire is matching the person of the ham without using force enough to overcome resistance but doing it enough to make the person aware of it is that enough to constitute robbery so it goodrem which is the new  so it doesn't have to be fear and which are totally unaware of course but what about but what about a snatch and you're away are right so i think goodrem is presenting a scenario where the person is aware because they were either bumped or shot one would be aware of either about a snatch a snatch of which you are aware you're going to be away or your that which you are aware even if the snatch is done without the kind of force that would overcome your resistance is that governor not i would say no new hampshire's attempting to to to codified common law robbery which requires sufficient forth overcome resistance which is a small amount of force so pulling the strap off of someone shoulder it's on their shoulder probably for many reasons but wanted to keep it there and so  comments remaining nasty is the puzzle i have about the text of the statute if your reading is right the the force necessary to overcome resistance in seem just a little strange to me that you would then have a separate element requiring awareness as i would have thought the force sufficient to overcome resistance would be a kind of force of which you'd be aware seems more natural to read it as the kind of force that's a mere touching would if you wanted to limit that a separate requirement of awareness which is how the statute reads i think so if you look i mean when you look at stokeley the hair right the diamond pin is in the hair you pull it out it takes care with it right there was no the person's aware of that and what's the resistance that they had to pin their hair they didn't do anything else other than to have the pin in their hair the person have the person on their shoulder they know the person cold in a way they ripped it off their shoulder that's really that's overcoming resistance so that it's so what's not overcoming was is that if i if i pick a pocket you and you me feel something i guess in your back pocket that's the jostling but you don't really know what's happening and i get your wallet i have an overcomer is it but if i pull your purse up your shoulder i pull the diamond in out of the air i have over and so it's a hard case it's not in the purpose of the ham not over the soul but still the person holding it in need to keep possession of it and you will pull it out and if they are aware that we've held that is not the level of force that can constitute a violent only so new hampshire has to criminalize something more aggressive than that in order to orbit the president that's what i'm asking and so if i says a bomb is not enough a shot is what the difference being the shove in the bomb the shot is the attempt to remove the person from the property where the bomb is an accidental contact associated with the tape and that's the distinction that we don't have a lot of material but those are the material and i think that's what they show and i think it's significant when you look at what the supreme court says counts when you look at new hampshire saying that's what we're trying to do to commit robbery and the pharmacy robbery used the same way with the bank robbery you have to have you have to have knowledge that your actions are objective intimidating and so what i understood ellison to say is given that even as you described it just bam is going to be a direct confrontation with a person that if you if you knowingly engage in highly in oath in the defendant are you that there was that knowledge did not travel in that way so that there was no injury at all we rejected that argument the new argument now being raised is even acknowledged holes to the intimidation element that still just creates a mens rea of recklessness all the parts that may be a robbery but that what the new argument is even if that's true that simply means you're mens rea with respect to the era probably harm your inducing in someone is recklessly induced because it's just objective knowledge that that could happen it's not intentional that i want to put you in fear of bodily harm it's just i know my actions may create that bodily harm we're writing to defend is saying that's just a recklessness men thank you judges that would be that would be the end of arguments in this case and we can conclude the session of the honorable united states court of appeals is now recess until the next session of the court god save the