With the mods' indulgence...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Officers'Wife

Officers'Wife

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
3,659
Location
A long way from heaven and too close to Chicago
(Note to mods- if this is inappropriate please remove and accept my apologies)

In today's newspaper the story was told of a man that robbed a convenience store. He had simply asked the clerk to open the register and when she complied took the money and left.

When the robber was captured - "quickly" according to the paper - he was found to have a concealed handgun...

My question is does having the weapon while committing a robbery make the robbery an "armed" robbery just by the virtue of having the weapon even though it is not brought into play or the victim doesn't even knows the criminal has it?

Essentially I'm trying to pin down the definition - Is armed robbery theft by means of arms or theft while armed?
 
That's a matter of state law. We'd have to look at the specific statute. It might say ". . . . while in possession of a deadly weapon, as defined in . . . " or something like " . . . by use of force or threat of force . . . "
 
Everything I dug up says armed robbery involves the use (and possession) of a deadly weapon. If the weapon is not an element in the crime, it probably would not be considered an aggravating factor. If the robber happens to be a felon, and the deadly weapon is a gun, that would be a separate charge.
 
Spats McGee said:
That's a matter of state law. We'd have to look at the specific statute. It might say ". . . . while in possession of a deadly weapon, as defined in . . . " or something like " . . . by use of force or threat of force . . . "
Click to expand...

IC 35-42-5
Chapter 5. Robbery
IC 35-42-5-1
Robbery
Sec. 1. A person who knowingly or intentionally takes property
from another person or from the presence of another person:
(1) by using or threatening the use of force on any person; or
(2) by putting any person in fear; commits robbery, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is a Level 3 felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon or results in bodily injury to any person other than a defendant, and a Level 2 felony if it results in serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant.
Click to expand...

I believe is the relevant statute. Then by this language simple possession would create the higher offense. Thank you Spats.
 
Well, it's tricky. 2) says putting any person in fear. If the gun is in the perpetrator's vehicle or thoroughly concealed on his/her person, it may not be a fear-inducing element of the crime if it's presence is never revealed.

Then again, I don't see how fear itself would not occur to the person being robbed, it's not like a robber is going to try and skilfully negotiate a fear-free haul.
 
I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn. But it's my understanding that in Ohio it might not fly as armed robbery because they can't prove (yet) that he had the handgun during the robbery. However, on the flip side, implying you have a gun whether you do or not (think finger poking in a pocket) it will get you an armed robbery charge.
 
bikemutt said:
Then again, I don't see how fear itself would not occur to the person being robbed, it's not like a robber is going to try and skilfully negotiate a fear-free haul.
Click to expand...
Purse snatch.

That is why local legal definition of Robbery include "Force or Fear"

A gray area comes up when the snatch is from a grocery shopping cart, as opposed to a person's hand/arm/shoulder/body
 
With the broadest of brushes, burglary is the taking of things. Robbery is the taking of things by threat of or use of force. The various States usually have a definition for robbery committed with or by way of a weapon; with some further defining the aggravation further split by the State's definition of "deadly weapons."

If we fall back to the hypothetical posed by OP:
Dude comes in an see unattended cash drawer open and steals the cash--that's generally burglary.

Dude comes in and says "Gimme all your cash or I'll knock your block off" that's robbery.

Dude comes in with 2x4 and demands cash, also robbery, possibly "armed" depending on that State's definition of armed.

Dude comes in wit ha 6W phased laser rifle, that probably will be robbery with deadly weapon--again, State's definition of robbery 'classes" or aggravations, and definitions of weapons matters.

This matters, as, in some jurisdictions, stick your hand in your jacket or hoodie with your finger stuck out like a gun, and you tell the clerk "Gimmee all your cash" the clerk does not know any better, and you are guilty of "armed robbery" potentially with a deadly weapon. But, that would be down to the jurisdiction, and whether the prosecutor would want to prosecute those charges that way.
 
It has been my experience that "taking things" is usually defined as theft.

Burglary usually requires entry into a structure to commit a crime
 
CapnMac said:
With the broadest of brushes, burglary is the taking of things....
Click to expand...
At Common Law, burglary was, "The breaking and entering of a dwelling at night for the purpose of committing a felony therein." The definition has since generally been expanded to include any building or structure at any time.
 
1911 guy said:
I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn. But it's my understanding that in Ohio it might not fly as armed robbery because they can't prove (yet) that he had the handgun during the robbery. However, on the flip side, implying you have a gun whether you do or not (think finger poking in a pocket) it will get you an armed robbery charge.
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the same lines; if the only person who knows the robber had a handgun in his/her possession while committing the robbery is the robber, barring a confession, pretty hard to prove it.
 
Here in Florida that crime would be called "strong arm robbery" or simply robbery if something of value was taken from a person (robbery here and I suspect most places requires a person as the victim - ordinary theft or burglary does not..) by force or the threat of force -and it's still a serious crime (firearm not involved). If at the time the individual was armed, but no weapon was seen, implied, or used -it would still be charged as above. If the guy/gal (crime is an equal opportunity proposition after all...) was apprehended and found to be armed (and was clearly armed at the time of the crime) that would allow additional charges and bring in the 10, 20, life statute that mandates ten years for committing a crime while armed, 20 for using a firearm in the commission of a crime, and a life sentence if you shoot someone in the commission of a crime.

Similarly, trespass is a misdemeanor but trespass while armed is a felony (with no indication that the weapon was used in any fashion, overt or implied...). And our trespass while armed statute has serious implications for otherwise lawful carry of a firearm...

In my opinion the 10,20, life statute should be in force in every state since it really does place a heavy burden on anyone that uses or carries a firearm while doing a felony....
 
I'm not sure that what the perp might be charged with would matter much, except to him and to his attorney and family and the courts.

Perhaps the question has to do with whether the threat or use of deafly force by the defender would be justified.

My question is, why comply with such a "request", unless the defender has reason to believe that the perp would be likely to use force?
 
Kleanbore said:
I'm not sure that what the perp might be charged with would matter much, except to him and to his attorney and family and the courts.

Perhaps the question has to do with whether the threat or use of deafly force by the defender would be justified.

My question is, why comply with such a "request", unless the defender has reason to believe that the perp would be likely to use force?
Click to expand...
Many companies have policies where retail clerks are instructed as part of policy, to simply hand over whatever is asked for, and not use their judgement in any way shape or form. So, the clerk will hand over stuff even to a much weaker individual who may not have the means, the motivation or the expression of using any kind if force whatsoever.
:)
 
Many companies have policies where retail clerks are instructed as part of policy, to simply hand over whatever is asked for, and not use their judgement in any way shape or form. So, the clerk will hand over stuff even to a much weaker individual who may not have the means, the motivation or the expression of using any kind if force whatsoever.
Click to expand...
That would seem to raise the question of whether a polite request unaccompanied by any implication of a threat would constitute a crime.
 
Officers'Wife said:
Kleanbore said:
That would seem to raise the question of whether a polite request unaccompanied by any implication of a threat would constitute a crime.
Click to expand...

I hate to ask this but are you being free with your fancy or raising a serious question?
Click to expand...

That's a good question and raises the notion of the state of mind (sometimes referred to as scienter or mens rea, i. e., knowledge or wrongness or intention to commit a crime) necessary to commit a crime.

It is wrong to take something which doesn't belong to you, but it is not wrong to solicit and accept a gift freely given. Which am I doing when I ask a stranger for money? It can depend, for example, on context. What would one be likely to infer about my intentions from my demeanor? Does it look like I intend to take it if it's not given, or does it look like I'm soliciting a donation?

It might be one thing to ask for money while looking belligerent. It might another while ringing a bell and standing by a red kettle while wearing a Salvation Army cap at Christmas time.
 
Kansas law: Robbery is knowingly taking property from the person or presence of another by force or by threat of bodily harm to any person. Aggravated robbery is robbery committed by a person who is armed with a dangerous weapon. (Reference Kansas statute 21-5420).

So, there has to be force or threat used, but not clear whether the person has to be aware that the perp has a weapon.
 
Frank Ettin said:
At Common Law, burglary was, "The breaking and entering of a dwelling at night for the purpose of committing a felony therein." The definition has since generally been expanded to include any building or structure at any time.
Click to expand...
Just curious, if the building was open (for argument's sake let's say the front door was not just unlocked but actually standing open), would that still be "burglary" or does it become something else?
 
Frank Ettin said:
That's a good question and raises the notion of the state of mind (sometimes referred to as scienter or mens rea, i. e., knowledge or wrongness or intention to commit a crime) necessary to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

Let that be a lesson to me to never ask legal people if they are serious when it would be frightening if they answered "yes." :(

There may not be a razor sharp enough to split this hair but wouldn't that lead to the "reasonable person" test in that the prosecution would have to show there was enough "whatever" that the reasonable person would consider themselves being robbed?
 
Last edited:
This will come across as odd, but I personally know a bank robber...good guy too. He walked into a bank, told them he wanted all the money in the place and got exactly what he asked for. He turned around and went back to the door and sat the bag in a chair and calmly waited for the cops to show up. He did have a pistol in his coat pocket, but never brought it into play. He was arrested, plead guilty and served his short stint. His charges were likely light because he didn't flea, but he was charged with aggravated robbery. The question of armed robbery (a step up from aggravated) was discussed but the DA didn't push it at all because the gun never came into play or was it known until he was in cuffs and being searched.

The longer version of the story is that it was an attempted suicide by cop but he didn't have the nerve to pull the empty revolver let alone aim it at a cop. He got the help he needed while "in the slammer" and is no longer a day trader risking everything he owns which put him in an emotional tailspin.

With most things in life even what seems to be a black and white proposition isnt. There is a few human elements at play in these situations. The victim quite likely is the most important. If they are all worked up and emotionally scarred then they will likely influence a DA into going for a higher charge. If they are cool about what happened then they may not work the DA up too much. Then there's the robber whose actual actions influence the DA a great deal. Go peacefully and you get a standard charge, fight like crazy or whatever and again it influences the DA to go for a heftier charge. Then there is the DA being influenced by the circumstances, on top of his background. Is he a hard old coot or is he a guy who may sympathize with the guy who is honestly down on his luck and couldn't finish his suicide attempt. Put technicalities aside, the gray area is what rules the world more often than not.
 
old lady new shooter said:
....if the building was open (for argument's sake let's say the front door was not just unlocked but actually standing open), would that still be "burglary" or does it become something else?
Click to expand...
That was a problem under Common Law. Today the standard has morphed, mostly by statute, to "unlawful entry" thus including any trespass.

Officers'Wife said:
...There may not be a razor sharp enough to split this hair but wouldn't that lead to the "reasonable person" test in that the prosecution would have to show there was enough "whatever" that the reasonable person would consider themselves being robbed?
Click to expand...
Or let's say it's an example of how details matter.

If a stranger asks you for money, I suspect that you're not going to give him any unless (1) you believe that he'll take it by force if you don't; or (2) you believe that he's collecting for a charity and you're feeling charitable; or (3) you believe him to be a poor, down-on-his-luck individual and you're feeling charitable.

So the question will come down to what that stranger did to induce your particular belief. And if he lied about collecting for a charity, he has committed theft by false pretenses.

And while we can think up all sorts of hypotheticals that don't have clear answers, things are generally not that "gray" in real life. In real life, if I really want your money, unless I can really convince you that I'll take it (or that I'm deserving) I'll be walking away empty handed.
 
One, not so small item, I neglected to mention about robbery in all its forms down here in Florida (and I imagine in most other places..) is that the crime or robbery not only requires a specific person as a victim -but also requires that the victim -if not attacked outright (your basic mugging situation) be placed in fear of their safety or life as an element of the crime. As a result the prosecuting attorney will make a specific point of asking the victim if they were in fear during the crime... Every now and then, when it wasn't gone over in the pre-trial workup some victim will say in deposition or in open court that they weren't intimidated in the least by the robber... If that occurs, there goes your case...

Hopefully Mr. Ettin can elaborate on my poor attempt to explain this (if California is similar in this regard...).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top