quarter as subsequently issues thompson that i think judge much you very thought of we laid out sort of what the test is for deciding whether or not the crime qualifies as a crime of violence under under the residual cite as i understand thompson what that case turned on was a survey of north carolina cases involving assault inflicting serious bodily  injury and the court concluded that there were been no there's been no showing that there were cases where the crime with anything less than actual intent i can't come before the court and say i and that is a very hard case to to understand actually but it appears from reading the factual section to the defendant neck case hit one police car a detective's car and perhaps backed into another detective's car without really much of an analysis the court did say that the crime of this is this particular crime can be committed with culpable deployed intentionally but whether the commission so they choose me and hitting a cop with a car which i have the lawyer at the time trying to prove that no one was hit or injured which there was i accidentally hit a cop car and i guess that's what they charged me for in the well i think i think thompson requires you i would argue requires you do a little more than thompson requires you to do more to find that it is covered by the usage of what i'm asking you is did anybody argue below when did the district court rule out below whether or not  the assault inflicting serious bodily injury element wise you can have an assault under north carolina law without any physical injury but yes i would be up here arguing on the basis of thompson case that that if it doesn't like i don't believe the court needs to go beyond and i don't believe that the court ought to go beyond making those two holdings in this case this case did come up at a very unique time and my colleague mr gordon didn't have the know that you look at the ordinary case when determining both the degree of risk and the similarity of rest so with respect to the degree of risk you have to look at whether there is a offensive touching of a police officer would qualify and the court found that that simply wasn't enough contacts penalized under the virginia court was not restricted in such a way that signaled this risk and then the court went on as would be the case by adding the element of the use of a dangerous instrumentality that's exactly what we have here under fourteen thirty two for absolutely so we think that the conclusion that the degree of risk is similar is just the logical extension of what this court ruled and thompson now when we turn to the similar and kind of rest which is the big type analysis we have to ask is the crime in the ordinary purpose and i think that's largely because you have a defendant who is a veiling himself as a dangerous instrumentality against a known police officer victim and mr going as cracked a lot of these cases come up where you have firearms just charged you have blades used and you have vehicles are there crashing into police cars or attempting to run over police on the street or situations where a police officer is trying to affect your way to traffic stop and is turning to stop the vehicle and then is deliberately dragged from the car all of those cases unquestionably are purposeful violent and aggressive do you have to and i would hope that when the court does choose to reach that issue it's something that has been vetted both by the district court and by the litigants on appeal and if there are no further questions i would ask the you affirm the judgment of the district court least one north carolina case spelman case where arguably there is a case about direct police officer trying to reach into the car to stop the car that they did not deal with the to my recollection