four st as the government conceived at page thirty five georgia has an armed robbery statute to crimes involving the property as chapman is there are there any cases you can point to specifically in georgia opening for him i saw that but when i read maddox the guy came in with a shotgun i mean he was holding a shotgun coming into the store so it seems to me that is a threat of violence i mean when someone sees someone come in with a shotgun the immediate reaction is fear and apprehension that maybe true your honor but the fact that maddox indicates that and that and since the shop owner had a separate room where he on violence against property i'm sorry go ahead but to think they're out there st and manic the court does reiterate that that means that the government itself has faded in other cases which is that charge armed robbery can be triggered by threat not only to the aware about what was about to transpire in a store and two is person and so and then it goes on and i agree with you they quote the loose language from the long case in  about person or property but i haven't found that case and i don't read maddox as that case and where there's actually been a case that it is to property itself versus the person th about it but the a number of circuits use intangible property as a way to commit as you know hobbs act robbery yet we've never there's no circuit in the country that i found that has sa object robbery is not a crime of violence in spite of that language so i think loose language is been used a lot in a lot of these cases around the country and yet none of that that i could find of hel but the fact that was language was used to be means that it's a crime it's not a crime of violence and in fact judge sutton said in red it has to be a reasonable probability and the way to figure out reasonable probabilit there's actual cases and i agree with you maddox may be the best one i could find as well so go ahead i'll stop interrupting thank you no know how i just agree or under that we're looking for not just the hypothetical possibility looking for the flee but other people in many different contexts successfully fully armed robbers and it doesn't mean it's not it's not a threat to the person just because they have an avenue of harris case would have to be wrong because both contemplate a rap look or something they can't use force at all and yet those are post oak laying interpretive right  sorry i i understand that but it's not an open question in front of us right because clause specifically interpreted as tennessee law that all provides for a replica and harris i think maybe michigan law i may be wrong on that it might aka and that i wouldn't have to rely on my mother wouldn't we have to accept that maddox is then a threat to property case because i couldn't find anything else for me i'm a point to do anything else and involving georgia law n under miles versus felix that the relation back has to it had to do with the fact of the two of you two claims and these are based on different facts they were completely separate counts which means on which he was convicted they were based on different subsets things of a statute and most importantly maybe in this case they were based on completely different predi you know that well that's a misinterpretation or what the georgia case is actually said is that the force the force  your character although i agree with the implication if any of the court's questions that that seems to be kind of loose language but it any rate the courts this georgia courtship never from eight hundred and fifty two dollars but so explain to me do you think it remains consistent under the current statute itself well that it's a question i didn't consider but not thinking about that no i don't think it does this statute itself reads that the person commits the offense of armed robbery room with the intent to commit that he or she takes property owner other from the person thinks is should is new or statute based on the other statute does repeat that loose language about fear of not only personal injury but injury to property or character  placing person in fear of injury to his property the criminals are not going to use the shotgun to damage the victim's property they were using the shotgun as force against the person to leave them alone to take what they wanted to take which is plain to central droppers so somatics doesn't stand for that proposition but i still think there's a big difference when the force itself is exerted on the victim and that's the way those cases even though they they use the horse to play on the fears of personal injury and property and characters those begin with that incident because it doesn't actually say force essenes use of force or the threat of force so using a replica of a gun is the threat of force to the person and that threat to that person is that if you don't give me what you want i'm going to force you to in the course is going to be capable of overcoming your resistance not it's a threat that he might not be able to carry out because of the gun but the capable language in stokely is table of overcoming the resistance of the victim and so this is armed robbery this armed robbery should be treated no differently than every other armed robbery statute that this court sprays or chatzky center and the conclusion based on the pace is case is clear so what about this language that your friend on the other sides cites from long and those cases where it does say use against force of violence against the person it says when the code speaks of force it is actual bile and when it speaks of intimidation it still means force not act on your wrath now we're talking about intimidation but exterminate upon the person rop by operating on is the years the fear of injury to his person property or character so here take your addict as example he has a fear of forced on itself and is then as a result of that he's going to lose his property so the use of