key reasons the answer to that question is yes first and foremost in boys seem the supreme court utilize dictionary definitions to interpret the word use in or negligent conduct one who acts recklessly acts with substance with knowledge that a substantial harm to a victim will result in the court's words one ass with although the supreme court said that the term used has to be interpreted in context and in light of surrounding language we know how the supreme court would interpret the you use the word  purposes of eighteen u s c section sixteen which defines a crime of violence in part as an offense that involves the use attempted use or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of an conduct would satisfy that standard in boise the court adopting that very same definition that you should require is the act of them point of force held that reckless conduct satisfies that standard and third to close the loop lest there be any doubt the supreme court in boise said that it's holding was on all fours with its rationale reoccur once again distinguishing between acid dental or negligent to the government's knowledge right now i am not lying other one i'm aware of is there is a case pending in this circuit but bennett case involving a main statute i believe that allege when we're talking about the crime here it is you which is assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and i say that because under massachusetts law to be convicted of one must actually employ or utilize the dangerous weapon that distinguishes it from other crimes under massachusetts law such as an armed robbery or armed assault with the intention with a dangerous weapon has to be merely possessed would be happy to submit a letter in answer the question i can point to that i will say that when the s j c has spoken about reckless conduct it has been in general terms not necessarily specific to the end offensive question and once again i think when you add the additional element required for a b t w where one has has employed again jurist weapon in something unique to the main statute it issue i think it's highly likely that the bennett decision will will that thing gets us to the next question why should we decide this  district of massachusetts but in this to rounding districts as well the district court in this case noted her frustration that this question has not been settled so i would just i would it instances where the visit very same issue to a subsequent panel and it was decided first by the subsequent panels so i don't think at least to my knowledge there's a uniform rule as i said  i think it's a matter for the courts internal governance i do think we and i think this is true for both sides on both the government and the defense bar bat the only concern we would in johnston the court went on of course to say that it's in validation of the residual clause did not call into question either the force or the elements clause for the numerator crimes in the  dead the second dancer judged it is this it bottom is a matter of statutory construction what is the use you were use of physical force against the person of another in the force clause and from our boy scene of a husband who played at his wife lets it with a high degree of likelihood that he is going to hit injure her if he does that once one would suspect that any sensible person would refrain from that climbed out ever occurring again if he then does it a second and a third time injuring his wife in each one of those situations i think that is the kind of person who congress would have wanted to avoid ever possessing a handgun so yes we are talking about the least culpable conduct and to take your example once again somebody who commits a d fleeing from the police and injure somebody causing substantial harm one would expect that any sensible person would refrain from ever engage in that conduct again but if you have at least second reason for the rule of law which the supreme court has identified is not only does it err on the side of providing due process required notice for defendants of by the currently being sentenced it also provides a means for courts to sig congress you have implied us statute ok this is a way for the court to say to congress if you truly intended drunk driving the minimum violation of a massive b t w under the  law simply cannot be well congress had in mind that's nonsense congressman who the states have recklessness in mind almost every state appropriate to up by the rule of lenity and it would be assuming the excuse we don't want to have to reach the hard question so we're going to apply the rule of avoided until the supreme court is good enough to tell us what all of this mean so let's avoid that excuse let's let's decide our question because in fact i don't think it's very hard i think just to judge  second time and third time it's a different situation because people if addition of recklessness that the government depends on it was seen is an amalgam of the model penal code g in a building in a warehouse in boston actually kicked over a candle started a fire left the building and it failed to report it to the police i actually think it was maybe one and as a result firefighters died they were convicted of involuntary manslaughter on the ground and although they did not subjectively know someone might die as a result of what they were doing any reasonable person they were reasonable people but any reasonable person would have to know and  the deliberate decision to disregard matches the massachusetts definition of reckless as another words and objective reason the standard is different i'll give you know the example welsh which and i'm not sure exactly which case you have  so the question on appeal is how does that work under reckless it b t w in massachusetts and the third does it a very interesting in detail to now says of the two different ways you can be convicted of reckless if you don't need massachusetts on the one hand you can intentionally gauging the defensive touching on the other hand you can recklessly engage in conduct that causes actual physical harm another reason why no standards are different and both pieces of the standards are different is an effort that in combination they add up to the same level of culpability so in welsh the mausers course is very clearly if there's actually you don't need to have any intent to use force at home so there is a long line of case law in massachusetts going all that back to the beginning of the last century that reckless driving in massachusetts which of course can be a form of a car can be a deadly weapon you can be convicted of reckless driving in danger of another person i may take a moment just to clarify the point i was trying to make i was not arguing that you're looking at subsequent asked to redefine the first i was simply answering your