standard for whether a defendant's actions or intent is based on and objectively reasonable person standard reasonable person standard not whether the defendant intended to intimidate anyone  and in fact a teller can be intimidated without without any particular defendant intending to do that but but we can draw a rational inferences for i mean you can want to  look at the facts as you said and match them up i think we have to look at the legal standards and make sure they match up we can in some cases make rational inferences but i think the important point is we don't have to under the bank robber a statute are you talking about the elements crawlers were you talking about the integrated says cause when you make that argument i'm referring to the elements clause i think that the decision that because under the bank robbery statute with respect to intimidation this court has held and it's a fairly common standard that it murder to show intimidation the only thing that a jury has to find is that defendant knowingly intimidated what we ask them to find is whether the reasonable person would have been intimidated right then and your solution is to negligence misunderstood or you arguing for some kind of a specific intent i'm not arguing for a specific intent but i am arguing is that well actually clarify on this question do you mean with regard to the definition of crime of violence and we know this from tray and tear at work wires intend to use or threaten force and on the other side i'm saying that the bank robbery statute with respect intimidation or the threat  money and that that would be there would be mere negligence or recklessness i didn't really intend there was just i was negligent i didn't need to put anybody in fear i just thought if i asked for money i get it teller very briefly became scared because of some like robbery well the court was very clear that he knew what he was doing who they do not know he would be intimidated if he knew he said i'm just having trouble screwed up this idea of the general money well and i think that that's very important point what you just said there is a scary if i have to keep in mind definition of recklessness is aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk it's not that would be and i think it would be a little clearer that i do think a defendant has to intend go in and take money from the possession of the bank it is specifically with that intent to intimidate that then i would to just be this court simply does not require it's not how we it's not how these cases are prosecuted it's certainly not something i would suggest where the courts find that there is a the court finds that there is an intent mens rea with respect to the defendant's intent to intimidate what that does is that puts that  trial the issue of what the defendant was intending where it's now kids after case we see the jury has to determine a reasonable person would be put in fear not if the defendant wanted to  intimidation in a bank robbery because the person is intending to take the money and implicit always implicit is you will be hurt if you don't give me money that doesn't belong to me because if it isn't implicit it's not a robbery because nobody just hands over money and most are explicitly not being robbed and they're intending to get money for some other reason that's where i'm having trouble with your argument and maybe i'm just missing something or saying in i'd like to give you money i know it's not yours but you look like a nice person i'd like to give you everything in my cash drawer it's just not how the world works they're getting robbed and being over getting robbed and implicit in the robbery is i've got to give you money because i'm under threat and it's not just part of what subjectively reasonable in the mind of the teller it's what isn't absolutely implicit in the behavior of the person doing the robbing cause if it were how would it be a where the teller testified i couldn't believe it was him and he came back to this one so and it's we're certainly not saying that this is not a terrifying crime any reasonable person would be in that other than rob banks and being repeatedly convicted of it in federal court unfortunately even with the categorical approach and all of that oddity is the answer here is fairly straightforward the bank robbery under federal law does have as an others and the reason is that the federal bank robbery statute really doesn't rely on recklessness at all there is generally can't requirement which is satisfied either by showing the person intended to make a threat of force or that he knew government does have to prove the use of force or intimidation and it does happen to prove this general intent of the defendant that he intentionally made a threat of force or that he knew he was making fun of us how does a jury determined the knowledge is entirely incompetent when they walk into a bank and he accidentally hands over a demand note he's guilty the judge and the jury would have to look at all the circumstances i presume you could come up with a crazy scenario in which somebody is so incompetent at that moment and has never been tried because mr wilson of taking away money that doesn't belong to him that might be an issue but with respect to bank robbery which is think the quintessential federal bank robbery in the first clause of twenty one thirteen there would be a force or threat of force and i think that language is very clear to bear was a lot of litigation about the intent necessary particularly leading up to you what happened with the residual and i think so if we were to agree with the government that bank robbery is indeed a crime of violence  have a general untapped and we agree with the government that you can't commit a bank robbery in that absence of intending to intimidate doesn't that satisfy any kind of intent so my position on if the court does not agree with me is that carter only required knowledge of what you're doing and not act on a teller but assuming governments correct that carter would require some more that you know your actions are technically intimidating that does not that still does not meet the intent requirement of trying and otero you said it much better than i was trying to say and i appreciate that some other reason why we would say that's still not enough you've got to have you have to have shown something different absolutely i think to commit a crime of violence you need to intent that element that element of use of force or intimidation and i'll explain why when we were working under i think this is an excellent example we were working under the residual there was a period of time where failure to return to a half way house was considered a crime of violence so i understand your honour's concern that the categorical approach and sometimes exclude things that we  as a matter of common sense deem to be violent but it can also go up in go out on the street here and ask anybody if that bank robbery is a crime of violence and i'm guessing that the average would be person would say yeah obviously which is why it's in the range of francis cross because it's obviously it is sort of the quintessential crime of violence right and i don't disagree with you but that would be a common sen as imputing more and then it does keeping in mind that carter was more about whether the larceny statute it had elements that fit under this rug or a statute that the specific clothing of carter respect the white twenty one thirteen a was that there's no specific intent to take and they say the person who robs a bank for the sake of getting arrested and going back to jail for treatment  so i think probably my best memory of the others the out of circuit cases are that they're reading too much into carter and that in a meeting in a circuit corridor is not sufficient intervening authority to change