one of the most quintessential examples of an extremely broadly worded statute in which criminalizes conduct which exceeds and falls outside of section t one question if if i understand where the circuit is presently a statute is a crime of violence categor charged at a welling that is occupied but not necessarily presently occup is occupied but not necessarily presently occupied and one that is it that good for occupation by a person as their house that's a good question i and in view of the fact that the resident can be absent when that when the weapon is discharged does that necessarily require that force the use of force is threatened against the person when the person can be absent arizona's and the court held yes it can be but this court held that it can be and that was because a person who is currently in permanent living at that residence inhabiting that residence will necessarily feel threatened when they come home to their home home which has been shot up sure from the point of the person who is discharging a firearm what's the difference between the two structures because in the one hand when the person isn't there actually to get shot but the discharge or doesn't know that and on the other hand the house is then adapted for use in somebody may or may not be living there at the moment which the shooter doesn't now i would say i would suggest that because the definition of crime violence requires as an element the threatened use of force against the person of another that it is not just the perspective of the discharger which is relevant but more importantly the status of structure that's being shot at in arizona that that's unknowable but that's unknowable to the person far in the firearm how does that make it any different of a crime it makes it different as a crime first because in a in a in in arizona that the structure need only be adapted for residence which means an essentially suitable for residence in the cases that i've cited in the brief show that that can apply to homes which have which have been for instance fitted for electricity plumbing and so forth but nobody is living there therefore there is no no one there who will come home who will necessarily  perceive the threat to that person there is simply no requirement in arizona of a current and permanent residence moreover the definition of residential structure is that it can literally include a seasonal cabin which is used for a week during the year it can include a tent or by the terms very time of the statute a railroad car which is being used by someone to live in or which has been adapted for use and that that does not mean that a person is living there so arizona does have a statute which does address i believe with the courts concerned about that is there there drive by statute that is specifically addressed addresses where an individual different question and that is that as i understand arizona decisional law as well as it stands you tory law says that you really start with the question is the structure of residential or non residential and nonresidential is defined as commercial suitable for or adapted for residence which means suitable for residents so arizona's case is particularly angry and bass have have shown that the the arizona courts will find that a case of a structure is a residential structure even where the person is not there it is not currently living there and the critical distinction is that is the critical distinction because under court has our us and lopez torres what makes it a crime of violence which what makes it necessarily involve an element of the threatened use against the person of another is that there somebody's going to be coming back there but the language of the statute though is that it's already been adapted for residential use your logic is adapted for right so it's all really it's a presumed under the statute that the defendant pled guilty to was that he was substantial risk of death to an individual by list looking at those documents isn't it logical for us to assume that those two are related it might be one logical inference but it's certainly not the only in fr there is no cross referencing between the two different charges so there is no discussion for instance that the residential discharge involved the person who was the subject of the of the of the endangerment is whether arizona's definition of a residential structure renders it outside the crime of violence definition in cortez are yes holds that this statute is pretty much the exact same statute in cortez are yes but shooting an instrument of deadly force at a residential structure the difference is that the california statute required the structure to be occupied whether or not the occupant was occupying the occupied residence at the time arizona does not have some suspect houses constructed on subdivision clearly not inhabited and there's a sign that says will be offered to the public in the near future under your theory if you fire fire a farm in any of those structures it's a categor discussing that type of example the type of examples we're talking about are people living inside homes the legislative history shows that they're concerned with about protecting the sanctity of home protecting the occupants inside the home  pretty much the heart of the statute is a person whose home is shot up by an instrument of deadly force even though that person may have been absent the time of the shooting well surely felt threatened by the physical force that engine has intruded on his or her home and i think that that i'm sorry i think that that is essential holding of course as our yes and it doesn't necessarily say that the california statute is the outer limit of what we're going to decide a crime of violence is the arizona statute doesn't have to meet exactly the california statute so the central holding is the courts as are capable of being pushed what you want i think there is enough and in the documents to show i mean he was convicted of the events in the same day both environments the danger to the victim i think the court can find it under both categorical and modified categor building and that that was required at least at that time and the interpretation by the california courts for the california statute we can't so we can allow even more permissive interpretation under california courts to drive th reimer saying we know what the statutes really going after we know what it's pretty it's pretty being the shooting at places where people are living it's not concerned with these bizarre absurd hypotheticals of shooting that model homes there are plenty of other statutes under arizona law that would prohibit that kind dest type of residential just discharge statute that there is because in arizona there is no requirement of a current resident a permanent resident of what ms berenger just pointed out was that the purpose of the of this statute was to protect the person who's home is shot at and in her words shooting where people are living there is on a statute specifically includes homes where people are not living that's that's the point i'm not