[Glock23-4-Me]

Okay, let me start out by saying I understand that you should be aware of your surroundings and the firearm is a last resort, so I am not trying to debate that in this thread. I just wanted some opinions on robbery vs larceny



I always thought that if someone walked up to you and said "give me all your money", that was robbery. After looking at the definition of robbery again, robbery is larceny + the threat of violence. Does that mean that if someone walks up to you and says "give me all your money" but does not threaten violence or have a weapon or even touch you, then did they not "rob" you? It makes a big difference because larceny is not a forcible felony but robbery is. Robbery is cause for legally using deadly force to defend yourself, larceny is not.

If that is true that "give me all your money" w/o threat or a weapon is larceny and not robbery, would that then mean that you should tell the person to ": censored off" and wait for them to threaten you or assault you before deadly force would be authorized against them?

Again avoid the situation, I understand and I will try at all cost. I am simply wanting to remove all other variables and just talk about the questions above.

Thanks

 

[MPDC66]

Under the law, a direct DEMAND for your money IS a robbery. The threat is implied. For it to be merely a larceny, the person either has to steal through stealth or trick.

Now, that doesn't mean if a six year old kid comes up and demands your money and has no physical means to force you to give it up constitutes a robbery. What it does mean is that if there is IN YOUR MIND a threat of consequence for not complying you are being robbed or an attempt to rob you is being made. DISPARITY OF FORCE now enters. IF the would be robber, for instance is an obviously stoned ninty pound junky half nodding out and is unarmed , you can't shoot him. You could, however, knock him on his butt if he tries to lay a hand on you and you can escalate your level of force as necessary to deter him. However, if it is more comical than terrifying, remember the law requires you be in fear to escalate to the ultimate.

You have to believe a robber has the means or see the means to make it a robbery. Intent without means is NOT a robbery unless you are afraid he has means. The reason this is not always clear is because it is based on case law and decisions made in circumstances that are never exactly the same.

 

[brownie]

Okay, let me start out by saying I understand that you should be aware of your surroundings and the firearm is a last resort, so I am not trying to debate that in this thread. I just wanted some opinions on robbery vs larceny



I always thought that if someone walked up to you and said "give me all your money", that was robbery. After looking at the definition of robbery again, robbery is larceny + the threat of violence. Does that mean that if someone walks up to you and says "give me all your money" but does not threaten violence or have a weapon or even touch you, then did they not "rob" you? It makes a big difference because larceny is not a forcible felony but robbery is. Robbery is cause for legally using deadly force to defend yourself, larceny is not.

If that is true that "give me all your money" w/o threat or a weapon is larceny and not robbery, would that then mean that you should tell the person to ": censored off" and wait for them to threaten you or assault you before deadly force would be authorized against them?

Again avoid the situation, I understand and I will try at all cost. I am simply wanting to remove all other variables and just talk about the questions above.

Thanks

You'll know the difference when it happens to you.

Brownie

 

[MPDC66]

You'll know the difference when it happens to you.

Brownie

True dat!:rolf

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

You'll know the difference when it happens to you.

Brownie

well that makes total sense. Now I feel stupid for asking the question. All I need to know is that I will gain insight when a crime is committed against me :doh

 

[brownie]

well that makes total sense. Now I feel stupid for asking the question. All I need to know is that I will gain insight when a crime is committed against me :doh

Oh ya, you'll gain much insight when a crime is committed against you, count on it :rolf

You can read all the books and all the posts you like, dissect and think things into oblivion mentally, but when it happens, the insight will come from the instincts you have.

Brownie

 

[MPDC66]

Glock 23, it isn't a putdown. You will sense the difference. Your instincts have been honed over generation upon generation of your ancestors. Some have sharper insticts than others because of life experiences but we all have that radar about danger. It is bred into us. You don't need instruction on when to be afraid, you will feel it and, if prepared act accordingly.

The real danger is trying to compartmentalize everything into pat, black and white answers and actions. It just doesn't happen like that. Legal education is important to understand limits and structuring your expression of reasons after a defense but hesitation when your instincts say "fight or run"can cost you.. There won't be time to parse it.

If you act because you think its legal, rather than because you fear death or serious injury, you will be wrong at least half the time, IMHO. Likewise failing to act when you have legitimate fear of serious harm because you are trying to figure out if you are being robbed or its a larceny can truly cost you.

 

[goldsamurai26]

I noticed that when people react from instinct or fright they were pretty much always within their rights, but when they react from anger, they were pretty much always in violation of the law. Just from my few years experience on the street.

 

[Mac45]

Robbery is the involuntary removal of personal property from a person using force or the threat of force. Simply saying give me all your money, does not constitute robbery. The person demanding the money must make an overt threat or implied threat of violence against the victim if the money is not forthcoming, for a crime of robbery to occur. Simply asking for money is not a crime. The homeless panhandler has to actively threaten you while demanding money or property for a crime of robbery to occur. Otherwise it is merely a niusance.

As to force, the force has to be forceful and directed against your body or to property in direct contact with your body [sudden snatching] in order to have the crime of robbery. Grabbing your purse or any other object off a counter, table, chair, car top, etc., is a theft, not a robbery. Striking, shoving or grappling with you in order to force the release of your property would make it a robbery.

The reasonable man criteria always governs these situations. If the action of an individual would lead a reasonable man to the conclusion that he would be the vicitm of violent attack if he did not reliquish his property, then you have robbery. That is what Brownie meant when he said you'll know you are being robbed when it happens.

I hope that helps.

 

[MPDC66]

+1 Clearly put.:thumsup

 

[T.S.]

I always thought that if someone walked up to you and said "give me all your money", that was robbery. After looking at the definition of robbery again, robbery is larceny + the threat of violence. Does that mean that if someone walks up to you and says "give me all your money" but does not threaten violence or have a weapon or even touch you, then did they not "rob" you?

Where did you get that definition of Robbery?

According to the Florida Statutes, the definition of the crime of Robbery includes the term " or putting in fear ".

Thus if someone approaches you, and demands " give me all your money " in a threatining manner, that would constitute putting you in " fear " and thus cause the act to be a Robbery.

The difference between Theft ( Larceny ) and Robbery according to the Florida Statutes is:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0812/SEC014.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0812->Section%20014#0812.014

812.014 Theft.--

(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:

(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.

(b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0812/SEC13.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0812->Section%2013#0812.13

812.13 Robbery.--

(1) "Robbery" means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.

(2)(a) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried a firearm or other deadly weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried a weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried no firearm, deadly weapon, or other weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3)(a) An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing the robbery" if it occurs in an attempt to commit robbery or in flight after the attempt or commission.

(b) An act shall be deemed "in the course of the taking" if it occurs either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taking of the property and if it and the act of taking constitute a continuous series of acts or events.

As far as using deadly force against a " Theft " or a " Robbery " :

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC08.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0776->Section%2008#0776.08

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

That is what Brownie meant when he said you'll know you are being robbed when it happens.

I hope that helps.

I can respect that but I also know that there have been many instances over time where a GG overreacted and ended up being the one in trouble. I am certain when SHTF then instinct takes over. But as with having knowledge and experience about how to USE your firearm, I believe that having knowledge beforehand about when you can and can not use a firearm to defend yourself is just as important. I THINK some peoples attitude is if they feel in fear then they will shoot and deal with the consequences later. Personally I never ever ever want to use my firearm and take the life of another but I certainly dont want to spend the rest of my life behind bars because I made the wrong decision. Especially when learning the laws before hand could have kept me from making the wrong decisions. That is why I want to arm myself with knowledge beforehand, hence the question I posed.

Thanks

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

Where did you get that definition of Robbery?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbery
: larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat

guess I should have looked through the statute for the definition

Thanks TS

 

[T.S.]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbery
: larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat

guess I should have looked through the statute for the definition

Thanks TS

( Phew ) Boy, I thought I was missing something in the Florida Statutes, and I was going to have you email me what I was missing ... :drinks

 

[MPDC66]

Always revert to assault being "in the mind of the victim" as perceived by a "reasonable person" and you will almost always get it right.

The exceptions would be someone looking to put themselves in a position to use their weapon and "orchestrating" a scenario where they view themselves as the hero of their own making OR a person whose fear is unreasonable and reacts to a perceived threat that an average, reasonable person would not consider threatening.

Unless you are far outside the median mindset, you should not have a big problem recognizing the difference.

 

[brownie]

I can respect that but I also know that there have been many instances over time where a GG overreacted and ended up being the one in trouble. I am certain when SHTF then instinct takes over. But as with having knowledge and experience about how to USE your firearm, I believe that having knowledge beforehand about when you can and can not use a firearm to defend yourself is just as important. I THINK some peoples attitude is if they feel in fear then they will shoot and deal with the consequences later. Personally I never ever ever want to use my firearm and take the life of another but I certainly dont want to spend the rest of my life behind bars because I made the wrong decision. Especially when learning the laws before hand could have kept me from making the wrong decisions. That is why I want to arm myself with knowledge beforehand, hence the question I posed.

Thanks

Remember all the threads where people stated "hesitation will get you killed"? If you aren't on autopilot [ acting instinctively ] in the decision making process when it happens, you could very well take too long to decide [ hesitate ] a course of action.

In one, you stand the risk of over-reacting [ acting too soon ], in the other you stand the risk of being injured or killed for not acting soon enough. Your instincts should tell you when you need to use deadly force [ when your life is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm ].

Your actions can and will be judged/dissected by people who have the luxury of time. It's a fact you can't ignore, but it's also a fact that you can't allow to determine your actions at the moment of truth.

The decision making process is measured in micro-seconds if you are "reacting" and behind the curve. You can extend this time by situational awareness, and to a lesser degree, avoidance.

As MPDC66 stated-- "The real danger is trying to compartmentalize everything into pat, black and white answers and actions."

As Mac45 stated-- "The reasonable man criteria always governs these situations. If the action of an individual would lead a reasonable man to the conclusion that he would be the vicitm of violent attack if he did not reliquish his property, then you have robbery."

Any over reaction usually accompanies an unreasonable fear and may be ruled on accordingly after the fact. It's been my observation that the more time spent in training of the physical skills, the more one then understands what they are capable of accomplishing [ a confidence in their ability ], and it's those who haven't the training who stand a better chance of over-reacting as they don't have the confidence in their ability to control their environment.

With that said, all the cerebral black and white thinking isn't going to help you one bit when the elephant presents itself.

Brownie

 

[Mac45]

( Phew ) Boy, I thought I was missing something in the Florida Statutes, and I was going to have you email me what I was missing ... :drinks

Florida statute substitutes the term "theft" for "larceny" when referring to the taking of property and services, that's all.:thumsup