there is at least one thing on which the parties agree and that is that you take the least culpable conduct which in this case is intimidation and intimidation and part of the least culpable conduct of  intimidation is there was a case argued last week that i believed such henderson was on the panel about bank robbery and the vast majority of bank robberies are committed by no means that are handed to the tellers and even a polite or a very tricky is no to a teller is considered intimidation in the baker every context such as visit there's an example in our brief of a person who said i need money  hundreds and fifties and didn't even say it was a robbery there's examples in polite notes that said such as please give me all your hundreds of fifties and that that is not seems immediate indicate that it's an object of test there as well and i think the jury is it i think jury instructions varied to be honest with you there was a case that cited in our brief about the person you had pleaded guilty so there was no instruction in that case i think jury instructions very and it depends what the defendant asked for frankly i don't think there is a so to speak well guarded as a general intent crime so you have to know that force and violence that the money was taken st of all you have to know that the money was taken that's pretty easy i think in most cases but then by force  did some act such as hand you know in the vast majority of cases and that the money then was taken from the eyes i understand card of the state otherwise i think the supreme court would have said specific intent that the a case that came up where a person actually stood there with a blank no if the theory was as i understand it that the person showed the wrong side of the note to the teller and that that was held to be bank robbery twenties and i think the bank tellers their talk to give the money in that sense rather than to have any chance of resistance in a could be that's a negligence standard for somebody who maybe could not speak i think it act will do today yes and i think there is no case law one way or the other in this that that's right gather from that and yes that would definitely be a holding bit of requires subjective  want to take your time or the recent time in response but i think i want to ask you about your opinion of a scenario that is not a hypothetical it actually happened and ask you about home for a couple of days find out where her little girl went to daycare and then went to the bank and had a little two way radio and said i confederate is at the happy that would probably fifty because i think that would come under knowing but from a reasonable person standpoint knowing intimidation and the fact that you've made this effort and you have while you're in the bank handing over money  your intimidating the teller by showing that you know where her daughter is so i don't think i would could look up that one my question was really directed at the threat of violence well that's a different i mean that's a dumb side that's a different part of the status it's part it's an individuals in the visible statute but that's a different problem let me put it that way so i don't know what come within the violence prong but by i have to say even i think that by handing a demand note and then showing that you know where the teller's daughter is i don't think i would argue that that comes outside of the purview of the statute which leads me t another thing there's a problem here too about intimidation about how somebody looks and we give the examples and judge eight even gave an example of someone who comes up to that you could be that person who's very  small slight and goes up there and hands and know and they may think that's a customer isn't somebody much larger could be intimidating to the teller but that's not the person doesn't think they're intimidating and they're like that level of force required under the clear offender guideline bank robbery requires knowledge as carter has held knowledge not only as to the taking of the money but as to the absent intimidation themselves although intimidation is measured from an objective viewpoint the government still must prove that the defendant has knowledge that his acts are intimidating to reasonable person so the statute does not  compass mere negligence there has to be proof of knowledge in addition the level force required is the same level of force that we point to requires has to be a threat of physical force and that is what all of the circuits that have considered this question have held that it is the threat of violent physical force and so they are there simply is no question that the program violence or force you have looked at a lot of dictionaries and it doesn't seem to encompass that necessarily i'll be honest i have not looked at the dictionary definition because  it seems pretty clear from the feet of thirty's from other circus back into the nation has been interpreted to mean the threat of physical course i don't think there's been any disagreement on that among the circuits so i have exactly what the threat of physical force requires person child so i think it clearly would fall within the statute that seems to me that if it falls within the statute if a bank robber goes up to a teller and says doesn't say anything about a thr is that i think it's a threat of force to the person of another whether it's the teller or somebody else i don't think it matters as long as it's to somebody else i think that that qualifies under the it's indirect doesn't mean that it's not the worse it's just different application of force so i think it's pretty clear under the supreme court's precedents that that is not a case of no use of force it's just a different kind of use of force ok thank you thank you