Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robbery?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ftttu View Post
    Lady Blue posted our Texas law. Maybe not in MD, but in Texas, "in the course of committing" covers it all, not making it a theft plus an added charge of assault. I never hear these types of "thefts" ever being reduced to actual thefts but always left at the felony level they are and should be handled at.
    Uhhhh, you forgot the other part of that sentence. If he leaves the property behind in his flight, it's going to be incredibly hard to prove that his intent was to maintain control of the property. Furthermore, based on the original scenario if the employee feels no pain from the incident there's no chance at robbery. Even if he says he felt pain, unless it was a kick in the pants, you won't get a DA to take the robbery without visible bodily injury. So in this case there's no chance in he11 of it being a robbery by Texas law.

    Comment


    • #17
      CO law:

      (1) A person who knowingly takes anything of value from the person or presence of another by the use of force, threats, or intimidation commits robbery. (2) Robbery is a class 4 felony.

      Given the facts above our DA's office wouldn't reduce it immediately, but it would be plead to shoplifting.

      Assault would be charged for fighting with the store employee, which would also be plead to misdemeanor harassment or something.

      If he leaves the property behind in his flight, it's going to be incredibly hard to prove that his intent was to maintain control of the property.
      In CO the active word is TAKING. KEEPING isn't required.
      "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

      "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
        CO law:

        (1) A person who knowingly takes anything of value from the person or presence of another by the use of force, threats, or intimidation commits robbery. (2) Robbery is a class 4 felony.

        Given the facts above our DA's office wouldn't reduce it immediately, but it would be plead to shoplifting.

        Assault would be charged for fighting with the store employee, which would also be plead to misdemeanor harassment or something.



        In CO the active word is TAKING. KEEPING isn't required.
        I was referring to Texas law only. It is kind of interesting to see how different states charge the same offense though.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cannady View Post
          I was referring to Texas law only. It is kind of interesting to see how different states charge the same offense though.
          Did you see the part of the TEXAS law that is highlited in red below...................I say you can probably prove INTENT even if they left the item behind after they assaulted the employee


          Originally posted by Lady Blue View Post
          Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY.

          (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
          (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
          (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
          (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
          Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

          My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
            Did you see the part of the TEXAS law that is highlited in red below...................I say you can probably prove INTENT even if they left the item behind after they assaulted the employee
            That's what I was actually talking about. It'd be hard to prove that his intent was to commit the assault to either, obtain or maintain control of the property if he was unsuccessful. Especially when the "assault" causes no bodily injury. That sounds like either a, he dropped the property and pushed the guy and ran, b, pushed the guy to try and get away and dropped the property and ran, or c, got grabbed by asset protection, pushed them away from him, and ran. The only way they'll prosecute that down here is if there is a-visible bodily injury or quantifiable pain and b- the asset protection didn't grab a hold or if they did he did more than resist the arrest of the person trying to recover property.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cannady View Post
              That's what I was actually talking about. It'd be hard to prove that his intent was to commit the assault to either, obtain or maintain control of the property if he was unsuccessful. Especially when the "assault" causes no bodily injury. That sounds like either a, he dropped the property and pushed the guy and ran, b, pushed the guy to try and get away and dropped the property and ran, or c, got grabbed by asset protection, pushed them away from him, and ran. The only way they'll prosecute that down here is if there is a-visible bodily injury or quantifiable pain and b- the asset protection didn't grab a hold or if they did he did more than resist the arrest of the person trying to recover property.
              The statute doesn't say committing the ASSAULT with the intention of obtaining or maintaining control of the property ---------it states committing the Theft with that intention and committed the assault in the process. (at least that is the way I read it)

              But yes-------------it is fun to see how other places do things. Iowa's statute is used all the time as a robbery if there is an assault in the process DOESN'T even have to be an injury involved --but iif there is a serious injury, the offense is the same as if the person had a weapon during the theft

              AND it doesnt' matter if the perp kept control of the property or not
              Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

              My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cannady View Post
                Uhhhh, you forgot the other part of that sentence. If he leaves the property behind in his flight, it's going to be incredibly hard to prove that his intent was to maintain control of the property. Furthermore, based on the original scenario if the employee feels no pain from the incident there's no chance at robbery. Even if he says he felt pain, unless it was a kick in the pants, you won't get a DA to take the robbery without visible bodily injury. So in this case there's no chance in he11 of it being a robbery by Texas law.
                This is actually what makes it harder in TX than in many other places. In NJ, it's force used during the course of a theft and there is no bodily injury required.

                That said, if the definition of bodily injury in TX is anything like it is here the it's not a high threshold. Here, bodily injury only requires a minor amount of pain.


                "Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it". George Constanza.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ex Army MP View Post
                  This is actually what makes it harder in TX than in many other places. In NJ, it's force used during the course of a theft and there is no bodily injury required.

                  That said, if the definition of bodily injury in TX is anything like it is here the it's not a high threshold. Here, bodily injury only requires a minor amount of pain.
                  Bodily injury is defined as pain or any visible injury. I'm not sure about the best way of reading the section on intent, but our district attorney's office is the reading that they must be intending on maintaining control of the property or obtaining it by virtue of the force. We have quite a few misdemeanor thefts combined with misdemeanor assaults, though most places don't attempt to apprehend shoplifters by means other than asking them to come back into the store. If we charged everyone with robbery who pushed someone to get away, we'd have our DA's office pizzed at us. While we don't have to ask their permission for warrants, we also don't want to get our good cases tossed out with the ones where we're overcharging.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cannady View Post
                    Bodily injury is defined as pain or any visible injury. I'm not sure about the best way of reading the section on intent, but our district attorney's office is the reading that they must be intending on maintaining control of the property or obtaining it by virtue of the force. We have quite a few misdemeanor thefts combined with misdemeanor assaults, though most places don't attempt to apprehend shoplifters by means other than asking them to come back into the store. If we charged everyone with robbery who pushed someone to get away, we'd have our DA's office pizzed at us. While we don't have to ask their permission for warrants, we also don't want to get our good cases tossed out with the ones where we're overcharging.
                    I don't think most DAs would get bent out of shape and hold it against you on the good cases. Most good prosectors take em one at a time. If it's a bad one that gets overcharged, it gets tossed. If the next one is a better and more provable, we'll take it.


                    "Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it". George Constanza.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cannady View Post
                      Uhhhh, you forgot the other part of that sentence. If he leaves the property behind in his flight, it's going to be incredibly hard to prove that his intent was to maintain control of the property. Furthermore, based on the original scenario if the employee feels no pain from the incident there's no chance at robbery. Even if he says he felt pain, unless it was a kick in the pants, you won't get a DA to take the robbery without visible bodily injury. So in this case there's no chance in he11 of it being a robbery by Texas law.
                      I don't understand what you mean on that. My mental picture on the original story is of some idiot grabbing a 30 pack of beer and about to leave the store. Before he is able to leave, a plain clothes loss prevention officer confronts the idiot, telling him he needs to pay for the beer or to leave it. The idiot, knowing he needs the life sustaining beer, doesn't say anything and continues his flight. The LPO either grabs the the beer or the idiot, trying to put him in an arm bar. During the brief struggle, the idiot leaves the beer, continuing his flight.

                      That scenario is a robbery here in Texas....unless the LPO received no bodily injury during the struggle. There are factors we don't know if they occurred or not like if the idiot squared off or verbally threatened the LPO, but if not, it all rests on bodily injury to the LPO.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Cannady View Post
                        but our district attorney's office is the reading that they must be intending on maintaining control of the property or obtaining it by virtue of the force.
                        That is the definition you need to go by
                        Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                        My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ftttu View Post
                          I don't understand what you mean on that. My mental picture on the original story is of some idiot grabbing a 30 pack of beer and about to leave the store. Before he is able to leave, a plain clothes loss prevention officer confronts the idiot, telling him he needs to pay for the beer or to leave it. The idiot, knowing he needs the life sustaining beer, doesn't say anything and continues his flight. The LPO either grabs the the beer or the idiot, trying to put him in an arm bar. During the brief struggle, the idiot leaves the beer, continuing his flight.

                          That scenario is a robbery here in Texas....unless the LPO received no bodily injury during the struggle. There are factors we don't know if they occurred or not like if the idiot squared off or verbally threatened the LPO, but if not, it all rests on bodily injury to the LPO.
                          If that's the way the DA sees it in your county, then more power to ya. Ours certainly does not see it that way and requires that the assault either be committed with the intent to obtain the property or maintain control of the property. Proving that they commit the assault with the intent of keeping the property and not for the purpose of fleeing being arrested for simple theft isn't cut and dry in most cases, such as the OP's scenario. The OP's scenario also said that the loss prevention folk had no visible injury, which means they must have felt pain or been threatened or no robbery occurred at all.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            These are the threads I learn a lot from.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              In Florida it is "Resisting Merchant" and "Theft"

                              Frequently, when a merchant or a loss prevention officer at a retail store believes that a theft is occurring, they will attempt to stop and detain the suspected individual before that individual leaves the store. If the suspected individual has committed a theft and resists the merchant’s reasonable efforts to recover the property, the suspected individual has not only committed the offense of theft, but has also committed the offense of Resisting Merchant.

                              Resisting Merchant is a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.
                              September 11, 2001 - All gave some, some gave all. Never forget -- Never forgive.......... RIP Brothers and Sisters.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Cannady View Post
                                If that's the way the DA sees it in your county, then more power to ya. Ours certainly does not see it that way and requires that the assault either be committed with the intent to obtain the property or maintain control of the property. Proving that they commit the assault with the intent of keeping the property and not for the purpose of fleeing being arrested for simple theft isn't cut and dry in most cases, such as the OP's scenario. The OP's scenario also said that the loss prevention folk had no visible injury, which means they must have felt pain or been threatened or no robbery occurred at all.
                                I may be missing something and I probably am. Again, the story says the unlawful appropriator of property was fleeing with his unlawfully appropriated property. That makes it in the course of committing theft. During this flight, where the unlwful appropriator of property intends to maintain control over the property-evident since he is still in possession of the unlawfully appropriated proprty, he gets confronted by a plain clothes LPO. Some type of physical altercation occurs where this LPO attempts to recover the unlawfully appropriated property and/or attempts to arrest the unlawful appropriator of property. We don't know if there was any bodily injury, or threat but we do know there was no visible injury to the LPO.

                                With limited information, this is either a robbery or a theft with a class c or class a assault. Again, it depends if the LPO was threatened or received bodily injury.

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 5490 users online. 329 members and 5161 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X