property of another or seventeen eight merely prohibits a defendant from exhibiting a weapon with the intent to resist or prevent encounter of the officers and in that case to the defendant was convicted of course seventeen point eight in circumstances showing exhibiting a weapon with the intent to prevent arrest by self harm rights to force against another and it could use that in for seventeen warning but it didn't none of those words appear and you only use the word of another is not a reference to force against another so that's one way in weapon is there there is the possibility of is still a threat of harm to another person because a weapon is present i would you respond to that well  signalling a threat well if the defendant didn't intend that it perhaps exhibiting a weapon was reckless about a risk of an officer feeling threatened but that's court because this court should not effectively resurrect section sixteen b which in sessions vs demaio the supreme court struck down section sixteen b person or property of another well this argument doesn't force seventeen eight inherently by its nature involve the risk of force against another that type of reasoning has been struck down when the supreme court sessions versus miles from thanks in sixteen and i just want to touch briefly on a few arguments that the government has made unless or has any not removable and they say the government says that that claim was never raised at all in his pro se all he argued were the grounds for relief from a move on i think that's where they say th potential to cause what is it death or serious injury to another under johnson the standard for whether or not something is violent force is whether or not it is capable of causing physical pain or injury to another the standard that the court set forth in this california supreme court cases with regard to section four hundred and seventeen dollars is a higher standard with regard to a deadly weapon then the standard that exists  threat of the use of force against the officer with that use of the word necessarily very clearly indicates that that case is a categorical approach  a pro se cases and those were the cases exhaustion is a bit of a liberal standard nonetheless the language that the petitioner has pointed out to say that he did exhausted actually that's what i did in the past and that's a factual claim about a case not about rehabilitation and the rest of the paragraph is about explaining that his conviction rested on gray there are literally what he is discussing is condition and his of whether or not you committed a dangerous or dangerous or violent that's and that is that surely has to do with an entirely different question and that is what is the standard that he had to show in order to get a discretionary grant of a discretionary waiver so that he can readjust his status he had committed a dangerous or violent of the had to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in order to get  waiver and the thing as is that the board said well we don't have to get into all this stuff the immigration judge got in to determine that he was dangerous and violent it's a crime of violence didn't go through and think that it was appropriate to board i didn't go through as the board said oh if you were similarly and you were at the same time they could under section sixty nine you're convicted by a jury you're holding a knife out and you know you were holding a night out at the office or none of those things come out of the war just as look at the yel analysis exception we have for circumstances where the petitioner can come in and show that there was a single case let's say or or a handful of cases in which a conviction was allowed to stand under circumstances that would render the match and you know from what we can tell today there aren't any outlier cases that would call that conclusion into question let's say though that you know ten years later the state courts have ruled gun out of his mouth and a minute so in both of those cases you don't have the exclusive threat to self that the petitioner said that the petitioner would need in order to show that these cases involve self harm and only screwdriver or a or what some sort of wrench all out of their pocket unless it is being exhibited in some way to prevent that you know to to prevent that arrest then it's not again there is the direct i don't know it's going to end upon whether or not there is the intent to frustrate the arrest and how it's being used within the context as a deadly weapon because the thing is remember to be a deadly weapon it has to be being used as an object  utilized in such a way that you can they say that threat of serious bodily injury or death so it's not so just dropping out of the ground but even back at it as i may not and they that but again it's all going to be dependent on the context and how and how that period it is very carefully written and it didn't go on to say physical force against a person or property of another because that issue wasn't raised by the parties and it wasn't discussed either