Kid gets body slammed by congressional candidate

[Faun]

FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Unhinged

 

[Correll]

Dumbf

The kids were idiots, but he was a grown man running for office. Serious lack of judgement and self control there. If he was a 6'2" 250lb. employee seen on video body slamming a 14 year old kid, he would probably be job hunting if he were salary.

He doesn't know the age of those kids. They were the ones who were violent... a man can protect himself and his property. When does the violence from the left end, when we stand up for ourselves.

Stealing a sign is violent??

Snatch and grab robbery, yes.

"Robbery??" What are you, fucked in the head?

​

Robbery—Definition.​

​

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.[/url]​

​

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?​

You can't read?

Sure I can. Apparently, you can't answer...

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?

Just pulling the sign from the hands of another is a use of force. I guess you're just too ignorant to realize it.

.

Dumbfuck, it's not force to grab the sign that would make it a robbery... it's using force or threatening to use force against the person they're taking the sign from. What the kids committed was theft, not robbery.

Yeah, what ever cupcake. LMAO They used force to try to keep the sign and were most likely going to try to destroy it.

The is the WA state law on robbery. My B/U/color


RCW 9A.56.190
Robbery—Definition.
A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

It's pretty fucking simple, the thugs robbed the guy according to WA law. It's full stop at the first OR.

RCW 9A.56.190: Robbery—Definition.

Dumbfuck, the theft has to include violence or threat of violence. According to an imbecile like you, there's no difference between theft and robbery.

Robbery is a felony in the State of Washington - SQ Attorneys

In order for a crime to be classified as Robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present.

sqattorneys.com

​

In order for a crime to be classified as robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present:​

​

The trespassing and taking and moving of money or property from another without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the money or property (the offender doesn’t intend to return the property)​

​

There must be violence or threat of immediate violence.​

​

The taking must be from the victim or in the victim’s presence.​

You're full of shit, this is all you need from the law for that situation. No other element is required.

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another

If you disagree, then you're telling the world how illiterate you are.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, that's a Washington state lawyer explaining the law to you that you're incapable of understanding. Here's another one...

Robbery law in Washington - Blog - Black Law - Seattle criminal defense

Black Law, PLLC is a Seattle criminal defense firm representing clients across Washington State on many criminal charges, including robbery. Contact our robbery lawyers now to get the reliable and proven criminal representation you deserve.

www.blacklawseattle.com

​

In the interest of simplifying, robbery is perhaps best understood by breaking the crime down into three elements. These include:​

​

The taking of personal property from another;​

​

This taking is done against a person’s will; and,​

​

The taking is committed by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury.​

Need I post more lawyers describing this law to you or do you finally realize I was right? As much as that annoys the shit out of you.

Perhaps you should try looking up the meaning of "OR". And in this case force was used to take and an attempt to retain the property, the degree of force is immaterial. Like I said, learn how to read you illiterate asshole.

.

LOLOLOL

Now you admit, albeit unwittingly, that you don't understand how "or" clauses impact a sentence.

No worries, I can do this all day long as there's no shortage of Washington state lawyers describing the required elements of robbery. Here's a third who will attempt to educate you...

​

Robbery | Criminal Defense Lawyer | The Curtis Firm

The Curtis Firm is prepared to defend you against your Robbery charge. Call today!

www.thecurtisfirm.com

​

There must have been use of violence or threat of violence. It is usually fairly easy to establish that violence occurred if there was physical contact. It should however be noted that there is no legal baseline for how much contact suffices. Even the smallest degree of physical contact may constitute use of violence.​

So if I were to see a car where the door was unlocked, opened it up and went through the console and found a wallet with cash in it and took the cash (not the credit cards, just the cash)....Nicely closed the console with no damage to the car, closed the car door and caused no damage whatsoever, committed no act of violence, simply just took what was not mine.....that is not a crime?

What if an officer saw me do it and arrested me? Is there no case for prosecution? I did not commit an act of violence, I did not create damage to the car, I did not resist arrest. I did not commit credit card fraud. I took nothing but the cash in the wallet. All I did was capitalize on a situation where I can take what is not mine.

Are you sure there is no crime committed?

Libs just say shit. They think if they say shit, that they have created the FORM of a defense of their idea.


THey can't seem to distinguish between a SUCCESSFUL defense and a complete failure of a defense.

Dumbfuck, I've now quoted 3 law firms (so far) stating that robbery involves the use of violence or threat of violence. You know, what you mindlessly refer to as just saying shit.

Nice language.

But I noticed you did not answer my question.

So the scenario I laid out for you....there is no crime committed? So If I, say as a 250 jacked up guy in a cut off shirt, walk into a house where the door was unlocked with a woman and child there in the kitchen eating PB and J sandwiches, I offer no threat of violence...and I simply say, I am here to take your jewelry...I ransack nothing, I break nothing, I offer no threat of bodily injury....I go up to her bedroom, open her dresser draw, find her jewelry box, take her jewelry, offer her a good day and walk out. No one hurt, no one threatened and no damage done to the premises......no crime was committed?

Are you sure you are not reading your "internet findings" without bias?

Are you sure?
Really?

Sure?

You asked, "are you sure there is no crime committed?" But I never said there was no crime committed. I said robbery was not committed. Perhaps it would more beneficial if you could ask me questions based on what I say, not on what I never said? I also pointed out there are other crimes for stealing besides robbery. Theft is one.

What do you think the differences are between theft and robbery in the state of Washington?

NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR BULLSHIT DISTRACTION.


You are siding with the barbarians again. Like lefties always do.

What distraction? Posters here were claiming it was a robbery. Me demonstrating it was not a robbery is a distraction from other posters claiming it is?

Not to mention, I implied the kids committed a crime when I first asked, stealing a sign is violent??" I didn't question whether or not they stole it. The video reveals they did. My contention was over claims the kids were violent and claims they deserved the violence against them.

As usual, your own shortcomings of comprehending what people post leads you down your own rabbit hole from where you will never return.

Exactly. You ignore the actual issue, the stealing of the sign and the man protecting his property and being verbally attacked for his actions, to change the subject to one of semantics.


AND you were an ass about it.

Dumbfuck, in reality, from which you are clearly divorced, I was replying to what another poster said. That is the opposite of ignoring the discussion. Here's an idea... why don't you bitch & moan like this to the person who said the kids were violent, which would be a distraction from the thread topic...

You derailed the thread because the topic makes your side look like whining punks and their bitch mothers.


That is what your presence here is about.

 

[Correll]

FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Unhinged

Nothing irrational about being done with dishonest assholes, and you are a fucking liar for pretending there is.


I stand by my words.


FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU LYING ASSHOLE.

 

[Faun]

Dumbf

The kids were idiots, but he was a grown man running for office. Serious lack of judgement and self control there. If he was a 6'2" 250lb. employee seen on video body slamming a 14 year old kid, he would probably be job hunting if he were salary.

He doesn't know the age of those kids. They were the ones who were violent... a man can protect himself and his property. When does the violence from the left end, when we stand up for ourselves.

Stealing a sign is violent??

Snatch and grab robbery, yes.

"Robbery??" What are you, fucked in the head?

​

Robbery—Definition.​

​

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.[/url]​

​

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?​

You can't read?

Sure I can. Apparently, you can't answer...

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?

Just pulling the sign from the hands of another is a use of force. I guess you're just too ignorant to realize it.

.

Dumbfuck, it's not force to grab the sign that would make it a robbery... it's using force or threatening to use force against the person they're taking the sign from. What the kids committed was theft, not robbery.

Yeah, what ever cupcake. LMAO They used force to try to keep the sign and were most likely going to try to destroy it.

The is the WA state law on robbery. My B/U/color


RCW 9A.56.190
Robbery—Definition.
A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

It's pretty fucking simple, the thugs robbed the guy according to WA law. It's full stop at the first OR.

RCW 9A.56.190: Robbery—Definition.

Dumbfuck, the theft has to include violence or threat of violence. According to an imbecile like you, there's no difference between theft and robbery.

Robbery is a felony in the State of Washington - SQ Attorneys

In order for a crime to be classified as Robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present.

sqattorneys.com

​

In order for a crime to be classified as robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present:​

​

The trespassing and taking and moving of money or property from another without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the money or property (the offender doesn’t intend to return the property)​

​

There must be violence or threat of immediate violence.​

​

The taking must be from the victim or in the victim’s presence.​

You're full of shit, this is all you need from the law for that situation. No other element is required.

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another

If you disagree, then you're telling the world how illiterate you are.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, that's a Washington state lawyer explaining the law to you that you're incapable of understanding. Here's another one...

Robbery law in Washington - Blog - Black Law - Seattle criminal defense

Black Law, PLLC is a Seattle criminal defense firm representing clients across Washington State on many criminal charges, including robbery. Contact our robbery lawyers now to get the reliable and proven criminal representation you deserve.

www.blacklawseattle.com

​

In the interest of simplifying, robbery is perhaps best understood by breaking the crime down into three elements. These include:​

​

The taking of personal property from another;​

​

This taking is done against a person’s will; and,​

​

The taking is committed by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury.​

Need I post more lawyers describing this law to you or do you finally realize I was right? As much as that annoys the shit out of you.

Perhaps you should try looking up the meaning of "OR". And in this case force was used to take and an attempt to retain the property, the degree of force is immaterial. Like I said, learn how to read you illiterate asshole.

.

LOLOLOL

Now you admit, albeit unwittingly, that you don't understand how "or" clauses impact a sentence.

No worries, I can do this all day long as there's no shortage of Washington state lawyers describing the required elements of robbery. Here's a third who will attempt to educate you...

​

Robbery | Criminal Defense Lawyer | The Curtis Firm

The Curtis Firm is prepared to defend you against your Robbery charge. Call today!

www.thecurtisfirm.com

​

There must have been use of violence or threat of violence. It is usually fairly easy to establish that violence occurred if there was physical contact. It should however be noted that there is no legal baseline for how much contact suffices. Even the smallest degree of physical contact may constitute use of violence.​

So if I were to see a car where the door was unlocked, opened it up and went through the console and found a wallet with cash in it and took the cash (not the credit cards, just the cash)....Nicely closed the console with no damage to the car, closed the car door and caused no damage whatsoever, committed no act of violence, simply just took what was not mine.....that is not a crime?

What if an officer saw me do it and arrested me? Is there no case for prosecution? I did not commit an act of violence, I did not create damage to the car, I did not resist arrest. I did not commit credit card fraud. I took nothing but the cash in the wallet. All I did was capitalize on a situation where I can take what is not mine.

Are you sure there is no crime committed?

Libs just say shit. They think if they say shit, that they have created the FORM of a defense of their idea.


THey can't seem to distinguish between a SUCCESSFUL defense and a complete failure of a defense.

Dumbfuck, I've now quoted 3 law firms (so far) stating that robbery involves the use of violence or threat of violence. You know, what you mindlessly refer to as just saying shit.

Nice language.

But I noticed you did not answer my question.

So the scenario I laid out for you....there is no crime committed? So If I, say as a 250 jacked up guy in a cut off shirt, walk into a house where the door was unlocked with a woman and child there in the kitchen eating PB and J sandwiches, I offer no threat of violence...and I simply say, I am here to take your jewelry...I ransack nothing, I break nothing, I offer no threat of bodily injury....I go up to her bedroom, open her dresser draw, find her jewelry box, take her jewelry, offer her a good day and walk out. No one hurt, no one threatened and no damage done to the premises......no crime was committed?

Are you sure you are not reading your "internet findings" without bias?

Are you sure?
Really?

Sure?

You asked, "are you sure there is no crime committed?" But I never said there was no crime committed. I said robbery was not committed. Perhaps it would more beneficial if you could ask me questions based on what I say, not on what I never said? I also pointed out there are other crimes for stealing besides robbery. Theft is one.

What do you think the differences are between theft and robbery in the state of Washington?

NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR BULLSHIT DISTRACTION.


You are siding with the barbarians again. Like lefties always do.

What distraction? Posters here were claiming it was a robbery. Me demonstrating it was not a robbery is a distraction from other posters claiming it is?

Not to mention, I implied the kids committed a crime when I first asked, stealing a sign is violent??" I didn't question whether or not they stole it. The video reveals they did. My contention was over claims the kids were violent and claims they deserved the violence against them.

As usual, your own shortcomings of comprehending what people post leads you down your own rabbit hole from where you will never return.

Exactly. You ignore the actual issue, the stealing of the sign and the man protecting his property and being verbally attacked for his actions, to change the subject to one of semantics.


AND you were an ass about it.

Dumbfuck, in reality, from which you are clearly divorced, I was replying to what another poster said. That is the opposite of ignoring the discussion. Here's an idea... why don't you bitch & moan like this to the person who said the kids were violent, which would be a distraction from the thread topic...

You derailed the thread because the topic makes your side look like whining punks and their bitch mothers.


That is what your presence here is about.

I derailed nothing, you unmitigated moron. Virtually very post I made addressed something another poster commented on. Including this post.

 

[Faun]

FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Unhinged

Nothing irrational about being done with dishonest assholes, and you are a fucking liar for pretending there is.


I stand by my words.


FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU LYING ASSHOLE.

Then be done. Don't just say it. You're the one derailing this thread now.

 

[Correll]

Dumbf

The kids were idiots, but he was a grown man running for office. Serious lack of judgement and self control there. If he was a 6'2" 250lb. employee seen on video body slamming a 14 year old kid, he would probably be job hunting if he were salary.

He doesn't know the age of those kids. They were the ones who were violent... a man can protect himself and his property. When does the violence from the left end, when we stand up for ourselves.

Stealing a sign is violent??

Snatch and grab robbery, yes.

"Robbery??" What are you, fucked in the head?

​

Robbery—Definition.​

​

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.[/url]​

​

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?​

You can't read?

Sure I can. Apparently, you can't answer...

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?

Just pulling the sign from the hands of another is a use of force. I guess you're just too ignorant to realize it.

.

Dumbfuck, it's not force to grab the sign that would make it a robbery... it's using force or threatening to use force against the person they're taking the sign from. What the kids committed was theft, not robbery.

Yeah, what ever cupcake. LMAO They used force to try to keep the sign and were most likely going to try to destroy it.

The is the WA state law on robbery. My B/U/color


RCW 9A.56.190
Robbery—Definition.
A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

It's pretty fucking simple, the thugs robbed the guy according to WA law. It's full stop at the first OR.

RCW 9A.56.190: Robbery—Definition.

Dumbfuck, the theft has to include violence or threat of violence. According to an imbecile like you, there's no difference between theft and robbery.

Robbery is a felony in the State of Washington - SQ Attorneys

In order for a crime to be classified as Robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present.

sqattorneys.com

​

In order for a crime to be classified as robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present:​

​

The trespassing and taking and moving of money or property from another without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the money or property (the offender doesn’t intend to return the property)​

​

There must be violence or threat of immediate violence.​

​

The taking must be from the victim or in the victim’s presence.​

You're full of shit, this is all you need from the law for that situation. No other element is required.

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another

If you disagree, then you're telling the world how illiterate you are.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, that's a Washington state lawyer explaining the law to you that you're incapable of understanding. Here's another one...

Robbery law in Washington - Blog - Black Law - Seattle criminal defense

Black Law, PLLC is a Seattle criminal defense firm representing clients across Washington State on many criminal charges, including robbery. Contact our robbery lawyers now to get the reliable and proven criminal representation you deserve.

www.blacklawseattle.com

​

In the interest of simplifying, robbery is perhaps best understood by breaking the crime down into three elements. These include:​

​

The taking of personal property from another;​

​

This taking is done against a person’s will; and,​

​

The taking is committed by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury.​

Need I post more lawyers describing this law to you or do you finally realize I was right? As much as that annoys the shit out of you.

Perhaps you should try looking up the meaning of "OR". And in this case force was used to take and an attempt to retain the property, the degree of force is immaterial. Like I said, learn how to read you illiterate asshole.

.

LOLOLOL

Now you admit, albeit unwittingly, that you don't understand how "or" clauses impact a sentence.

No worries, I can do this all day long as there's no shortage of Washington state lawyers describing the required elements of robbery. Here's a third who will attempt to educate you...

​

Robbery | Criminal Defense Lawyer | The Curtis Firm

The Curtis Firm is prepared to defend you against your Robbery charge. Call today!

www.thecurtisfirm.com

​

There must have been use of violence or threat of violence. It is usually fairly easy to establish that violence occurred if there was physical contact. It should however be noted that there is no legal baseline for how much contact suffices. Even the smallest degree of physical contact may constitute use of violence.​

So if I were to see a car where the door was unlocked, opened it up and went through the console and found a wallet with cash in it and took the cash (not the credit cards, just the cash)....Nicely closed the console with no damage to the car, closed the car door and caused no damage whatsoever, committed no act of violence, simply just took what was not mine.....that is not a crime?

What if an officer saw me do it and arrested me? Is there no case for prosecution? I did not commit an act of violence, I did not create damage to the car, I did not resist arrest. I did not commit credit card fraud. I took nothing but the cash in the wallet. All I did was capitalize on a situation where I can take what is not mine.

Are you sure there is no crime committed?

Libs just say shit. They think if they say shit, that they have created the FORM of a defense of their idea.


THey can't seem to distinguish between a SUCCESSFUL defense and a complete failure of a defense.

Dumbfuck, I've now quoted 3 law firms (so far) stating that robbery involves the use of violence or threat of violence. You know, what you mindlessly refer to as just saying shit.

Nice language.

But I noticed you did not answer my question.

So the scenario I laid out for you....there is no crime committed? So If I, say as a 250 jacked up guy in a cut off shirt, walk into a house where the door was unlocked with a woman and child there in the kitchen eating PB and J sandwiches, I offer no threat of violence...and I simply say, I am here to take your jewelry...I ransack nothing, I break nothing, I offer no threat of bodily injury....I go up to her bedroom, open her dresser draw, find her jewelry box, take her jewelry, offer her a good day and walk out. No one hurt, no one threatened and no damage done to the premises......no crime was committed?

Are you sure you are not reading your "internet findings" without bias?

Are you sure?
Really?

Sure?

You asked, "are you sure there is no crime committed?" But I never said there was no crime committed. I said robbery was not committed. Perhaps it would more beneficial if you could ask me questions based on what I say, not on what I never said? I also pointed out there are other crimes for stealing besides robbery. Theft is one.

What do you think the differences are between theft and robbery in the state of Washington?

NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR BULLSHIT DISTRACTION.


You are siding with the barbarians again. Like lefties always do.

What distraction? Posters here were claiming it was a robbery. Me demonstrating it was not a robbery is a distraction from other posters claiming it is?

Not to mention, I implied the kids committed a crime when I first asked, stealing a sign is violent??" I didn't question whether or not they stole it. The video reveals they did. My contention was over claims the kids were violent and claims they deserved the violence against them.

As usual, your own shortcomings of comprehending what people post leads you down your own rabbit hole from where you will never return.

Exactly. You ignore the actual issue, the stealing of the sign and the man protecting his property and being verbally attacked for his actions, to change the subject to one of semantics.


AND you were an ass about it.

Dumbfuck, in reality, from which you are clearly divorced, I was replying to what another poster said. That is the opposite of ignoring the discussion. Here's an idea... why don't you bitch & moan like this to the person who said the kids were violent, which would be a distraction from the thread topic...

You derailed the thread because the topic makes your side look like whining punks and their bitch mothers.


That is what your presence here is about.

I derailed nothing, you unmitigated moron. Virtually very post I made addressed something another poster commented on. Including this post.

You people are savages who, when you gain power, prove to be unable to maintain civilization.


Have you noticed that as a society, we no longer know how to prevent people from shitting in the streets?

This was not a problem when I was a kid. Why is it now? Is this the "progress" I have been hearing so much about?

 

[Correll]

FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Unhinged

Nothing irrational about being done with dishonest assholes, and you are a fucking liar for pretending there is.


I stand by my words.


FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU LYING ASSHOLE.

Then be done. Don't just say it. You're the one derailing this thread now.

Nope. You derailed the thread with your semantics bullshit. I just called you on it, and now you are butt hurt.

 

[Faun]

FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Unhinged

Nothing irrational about being done with dishonest assholes, and you are a fucking liar for pretending there is.


I stand by my words.


FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU LYING ASSHOLE.

Then be done. Don't just say it. You're the one derailing this thread now.

Nope. You derailed the thread with your semantics bullshit. I just called you on it, and now you are butt hurt.

LOL

Do you even know you're fucking insane?

What I did was question what was violent about stealing that sign. That question was on topic since this thread is about the violence of stealing that sign and the violent reaction.

Now you’re the one derailing this thread by trying to make it about me. That's the very definition of a forum troll, which is what you are.

 

[BS Filter]

Ya'll are making a mistake by conversing with a mentally ill person as if they were rational. Faun is very ill.

 

[Faun]

Ya'll are making a mistake by conversing with a mentally ill person as if they were rational. Faun is very ill.

LOL

What a pity you can't demonstrate that, huh?

I guess this thread is done. You yahoos only want to talk about me and not the thread topic.

 

[Correll]

FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Unhinged

Nothing irrational about being done with dishonest assholes, and you are a fucking liar for pretending there is.


I stand by my words.


FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU LYING ASSHOLE.

Then be done. Don't just say it. You're the one derailing this thread now.

Nope. You derailed the thread with your semantics bullshit. I just called you on it, and now you are butt hurt.

LOL

Do you even know you're fucking insane?

What I did was question what was violent about stealing that sign. That question was on topic since this thread is about the violence of stealing that sign and the violent reaction.

Now you’re the one derailing this thread by trying to make it about me. That's the very definition of a forum troll, which is what you are.

You think it is terrible the way that so many of you lefties feel you have the right to suppress speech you don't like?

And what does it say about you people that you are like that?

 

[OKTexas]

The kids were idiots, but he was a grown man running for office. Serious lack of judgement and self control there. If he was a 6'2" 250lb. employee seen on video body slamming a 14 year old kid, he would probably be job hunting if he were salary.

He doesn't know the age of those kids. They were the ones who were violent... a man can protect himself and his property. When does the violence from the left end, when we stand up for ourselves.

Stealing a sign is violent??

Snatch and grab robbery, yes.

"Robbery??" What are you, fucked in the head?

​

Robbery—Definition.​

​

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.[/url]​

​

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?​

You can't read?

Sure I can. Apparently, you can't answer...

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?

Just pulling the sign from the hands of another is a use of force. I guess you're just too ignorant to realize it.

.

Dumbfuck, it's not force to grab the sign that would make it a robbery... it's using force or threatening to use force against the person they're taking the sign from. What the kids committed was theft, not robbery.

Yeah, what ever cupcake. LMAO They used force to try to keep the sign and were most likely going to try to destroy it.

The is the WA state law on robbery. My B/U/color


RCW 9A.56.190
Robbery—Definition.
A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

It's pretty fucking simple, the thugs robbed the guy according to WA law. It's full stop at the first OR.

RCW 9A.56.190: Robbery—Definition.

Dumbfuck, the theft has to include violence or threat of violence. According to an imbecile like you, there's no difference between theft and robbery.

Robbery is a felony in the State of Washington - SQ Attorneys

In order for a crime to be classified as Robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present.

sqattorneys.com

​

In order for a crime to be classified as robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present:​

​

The trespassing and taking and moving of money or property from another without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the money or property (the offender doesn’t intend to return the property)​

​

There must be violence or threat of immediate violence.​

​

The taking must be from the victim or in the victim’s presence.​

You're full of shit, this is all you need from the law for that situation. No other element is required.

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another

If you disagree, then you're telling the world how illiterate you are.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, that's a Washington state lawyer explaining the law to you that you're incapable of understanding. Here's another one...

Robbery law in Washington - Blog - Black Law - Seattle criminal defense

Black Law, PLLC is a Seattle criminal defense firm representing clients across Washington State on many criminal charges, including robbery. Contact our robbery lawyers now to get the reliable and proven criminal representation you deserve.

www.blacklawseattle.com

​

In the interest of simplifying, robbery is perhaps best understood by breaking the crime down into three elements. These include:​

​

The taking of personal property from another;​

​

This taking is done against a person’s will; and,​

​

The taking is committed by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury.​

Need I post more lawyers describing this law to you or do you finally realize I was right? As much as that annoys the shit out of you.

Perhaps you should try looking up the meaning of "OR". And in this case force was used to take and an attempt to retain the property, the degree of force is immaterial. Like I said, learn how to read you illiterate asshole.

.

LOLOLOL

Now you admit, albeit unwittingly, that you don't understand how "or" clauses impact a sentence.

No worries, I can do this all day long as there's no shortage of Washington state lawyers describing the required elements of robbery. Here's a third who will attempt to educate you...

​

Robbery | Criminal Defense Lawyer | The Curtis Firm

The Curtis Firm is prepared to defend you against your Robbery charge. Call today!

www.thecurtisfirm.com

​

There must have been use of violence or threat of violence. It is usually fairly easy to establish that violence occurred if there was physical contact. It should however be noted that there is no legal baseline for how much contact suffices. Even the smallest degree of physical contact may constitute use of violence.​

So if I were to see a car where the door was unlocked, opened it up and went through the console and found a wallet with cash in it and took the cash (not the credit cards, just the cash)....Nicely closed the console with no damage to the car, closed the car door and caused no damage whatsoever, committed no act of violence, simply just took what was not mine.....that is not a crime?

What if an officer saw me do it and arrested me? Is there no case for prosecution? I did not commit an act of violence, I did not create damage to the car, I did not resist arrest. I did not commit credit card fraud. I took nothing but the cash in the wallet. All I did was capitalize on a situation where I can take what is not mine.

Are you sure there is no crime committed?

Libs just say shit. They think if they say shit, that they have created the FORM of a defense of their idea.


THey can't seem to distinguish between a SUCCESSFUL defense and a complete failure of a defense.

Dumbfuck, I've now quoted 3 law firms (so far) stating that robbery involves the use of violence or threat of violence. You know, what you mindlessly refer to as just saying shit.

Nice language.

But I noticed you did not answer my question.

So the scenario I laid out for you....there is no crime committed? So If I, say as a 250 jacked up guy in a cut off shirt, walk into a house where the door was unlocked with a woman and child there in the kitchen eating PB and J sandwiches, I offer no threat of violence...and I simply say, I am here to take your jewelry...I ransack nothing, I break nothing, I offer no threat of bodily injury....I go up to her bedroom, open her dresser draw, find her jewelry box, take her jewelry, offer her a good day and walk out. No one hurt, no one threatened and no damage done to the premises......no crime was committed?

Are you sure you are not reading your "internet findings" without bias?

Are you sure?
Really?

Sure?

You asked, "are you sure there is no crime committed?" But I never said there was no crime committed. I said robbery was not committed. Perhaps it would more beneficial if you could ask me questions based on what I say, not on what I never said? I also pointed out there are other crimes for stealing besides robbery. Theft is one.

What do you think the differences are between theft and robbery in the state of Washington?

fair enough...but the discussion was whether or not a crime was committed. Someone used the term robbery so you made the debate about what is robbery and what is not......instead of debating whether or not the adolescent was in the wrong and deserved the consequences
So you made it about semantics.......not the issue at hand
You spent you effort showing how your opponent misused a word as opposed to actually discussing if what was done was right or wrong. So the only thing gained was your ability using the internet to show how your opponent is ignorant to the law.....but nothing about the actual issue.

Good for you.

No, the freak even got that wrong, the situation that occurred in the OP was a robbery. He's just trying to argue that snatching something from another persons hands isn't violence, it is. It's no different than a purse snatcher grabbing a ladies handbag. Just overcoming a persons ability to hold on to their property is a degree of violence.

.

 

[Faun]

FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Unhinged

Nothing irrational about being done with dishonest assholes, and you are a fucking liar for pretending there is.


I stand by my words.


FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU LYING ASSHOLE.

Then be done. Don't just say it. You're the one derailing this thread now.

Nope. You derailed the thread with your semantics bullshit. I just called you on it, and now you are butt hurt.

LOL

Do you even know you're fucking insane?

What I did was question what was violent about stealing that sign. That question was on topic since this thread is about the violence of stealing that sign and the violent reaction.

Now you’re the one derailing this thread by trying to make it about me. That's the very definition of a forum troll, which is what you are.

You think it is terrible the way that so many of you lefties feel you have the right to suppress speech you don't like?

And what does it say about you people that you are like that?

I suppressed no one's speech so you missed your target on that one. You also seem to be oblivious that like some on the left, there are also some on the right who also feel they have the right to suppress others' speech. Neither side has a monopoly on such behavior.

 

[BS Filter]

Always remember, in the mind of the leftist, as a conservative you are not entitled to the same rights they are because you disagree with them. That's how sick they are.

 

[Correll]

FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Unhinged

Nothing irrational about being done with dishonest assholes, and you are a fucking liar for pretending there is.


I stand by my words.


FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU LYING ASSHOLE.

Then be done. Don't just say it. You're the one derailing this thread now.

Nope. You derailed the thread with your semantics bullshit. I just called you on it, and now you are butt hurt.

LOL

Do you even know you're fucking insane?

What I did was question what was violent about stealing that sign. That question was on topic since this thread is about the violence of stealing that sign and the violent reaction.

Now you’re the one derailing this thread by trying to make it about me. That's the very definition of a forum troll, which is what you are.

You think it is terrible the way that so many of you lefties feel you have the right to suppress speech you don't like?

And what does it say about you people that you are like that?

I suppressed no one's speech so you missed your target on that one. You also seem to be oblivious that like some on the left, there are also some on the right who also feel they have the right to suppress others' speech. Neither side has a monopoly on such behavior.

1. I did not accuse you personally so that was just stupid strawman of yours.


2. I'm sure that you could find one or two outliers to justify your claim. But in general today, yes, your side has an effective monopoly on such behavior.

3. What do you think about your fellow libs that has such beliefs and actions?

 

[Faun]

The kids were idiots, but he was a grown man running for office. Serious lack of judgement and self control there. If he was a 6'2" 250lb. employee seen on video body slamming a 14 year old kid, he would probably be job hunting if he were salary.

He doesn't know the age of those kids. They were the ones who were violent... a man can protect himself and his property. When does the violence from the left end, when we stand up for ourselves.

Stealing a sign is violent??

Snatch and grab robbery, yes.

"Robbery??" What are you, fucked in the head?

​

Robbery—Definition.​

​

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.[/url]​

​

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?​

You can't read?

Sure I can. Apparently, you can't answer...

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?

Just pulling the sign from the hands of another is a use of force. I guess you're just too ignorant to realize it.

.

Dumbfuck, it's not force to grab the sign that would make it a robbery... it's using force or threatening to use force against the person they're taking the sign from. What the kids committed was theft, not robbery.

Yeah, what ever cupcake. LMAO They used force to try to keep the sign and were most likely going to try to destroy it.

The is the WA state law on robbery. My B/U/color


RCW 9A.56.190
Robbery—Definition.
A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

It's pretty fucking simple, the thugs robbed the guy according to WA law. It's full stop at the first OR.

RCW 9A.56.190: Robbery—Definition.

Dumbfuck, the theft has to include violence or threat of violence. According to an imbecile like you, there's no difference between theft and robbery.

Robbery is a felony in the State of Washington - SQ Attorneys

In order for a crime to be classified as Robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present.

sqattorneys.com

​

In order for a crime to be classified as robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present:​

​

The trespassing and taking and moving of money or property from another without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the money or property (the offender doesn’t intend to return the property)​

​

There must be violence or threat of immediate violence.​

​

The taking must be from the victim or in the victim’s presence.​

You're full of shit, this is all you need from the law for that situation. No other element is required.

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another

If you disagree, then you're telling the world how illiterate you are.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, that's a Washington state lawyer explaining the law to you that you're incapable of understanding. Here's another one...

Robbery law in Washington - Blog - Black Law - Seattle criminal defense

Black Law, PLLC is a Seattle criminal defense firm representing clients across Washington State on many criminal charges, including robbery. Contact our robbery lawyers now to get the reliable and proven criminal representation you deserve.

www.blacklawseattle.com

​

In the interest of simplifying, robbery is perhaps best understood by breaking the crime down into three elements. These include:​

​

The taking of personal property from another;​

​

This taking is done against a person’s will; and,​

​

The taking is committed by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury.​

Need I post more lawyers describing this law to you or do you finally realize I was right? As much as that annoys the shit out of you.

Perhaps you should try looking up the meaning of "OR". And in this case force was used to take and an attempt to retain the property, the degree of force is immaterial. Like I said, learn how to read you illiterate asshole.

.

LOLOLOL

Now you admit, albeit unwittingly, that you don't understand how "or" clauses impact a sentence.

No worries, I can do this all day long as there's no shortage of Washington state lawyers describing the required elements of robbery. Here's a third who will attempt to educate you...

​

Robbery | Criminal Defense Lawyer | The Curtis Firm

The Curtis Firm is prepared to defend you against your Robbery charge. Call today!

www.thecurtisfirm.com

​

There must have been use of violence or threat of violence. It is usually fairly easy to establish that violence occurred if there was physical contact. It should however be noted that there is no legal baseline for how much contact suffices. Even the smallest degree of physical contact may constitute use of violence.​

So if I were to see a car where the door was unlocked, opened it up and went through the console and found a wallet with cash in it and took the cash (not the credit cards, just the cash)....Nicely closed the console with no damage to the car, closed the car door and caused no damage whatsoever, committed no act of violence, simply just took what was not mine.....that is not a crime?

What if an officer saw me do it and arrested me? Is there no case for prosecution? I did not commit an act of violence, I did not create damage to the car, I did not resist arrest. I did not commit credit card fraud. I took nothing but the cash in the wallet. All I did was capitalize on a situation where I can take what is not mine.

Are you sure there is no crime committed?

Libs just say shit. They think if they say shit, that they have created the FORM of a defense of their idea.


THey can't seem to distinguish between a SUCCESSFUL defense and a complete failure of a defense.

Dumbfuck, I've now quoted 3 law firms (so far) stating that robbery involves the use of violence or threat of violence. You know, what you mindlessly refer to as just saying shit.

Nice language.

But I noticed you did not answer my question.

So the scenario I laid out for you....there is no crime committed? So If I, say as a 250 jacked up guy in a cut off shirt, walk into a house where the door was unlocked with a woman and child there in the kitchen eating PB and J sandwiches, I offer no threat of violence...and I simply say, I am here to take your jewelry...I ransack nothing, I break nothing, I offer no threat of bodily injury....I go up to her bedroom, open her dresser draw, find her jewelry box, take her jewelry, offer her a good day and walk out. No one hurt, no one threatened and no damage done to the premises......no crime was committed?

Are you sure you are not reading your "internet findings" without bias?

Are you sure?
Really?

Sure?

You asked, "are you sure there is no crime committed?" But I never said there was no crime committed. I said robbery was not committed. Perhaps it would more beneficial if you could ask me questions based on what I say, not on what I never said? I also pointed out there are other crimes for stealing besides robbery. Theft is one.

What do you think the differences are between theft and robbery in the state of Washington?

fair enough...but the discussion was whether or not a crime was committed. Someone used the term robbery so you made the debate about what is robbery and what is not......instead of debating whether or not the adolescent was in the wrong and deserved the consequences
So you made it about semantics.......not the issue at hand
You spent you effort showing how your opponent misused a word as opposed to actually discussing if what was done was right or wrong. So the only thing gained was your ability using the internet to show how your opponent is ignorant to the law.....but nothing about the actual issue.

Good for you.

No, the freak even got that wrong, the situation that occurred in the OP was a robbery. He's just trying to argue that snatching something from another persons hands isn't violence, it is. It's no different than a purse snatcher grabbing a ladies handbag. Just overcoming a persons ability to hold on to their property is a degree of violence.

.

LOL

You're ineducable. That actually wasn't a bad analogy though I was surprised you came up with it. Still, it caused me to consider it. Where you swing and miss yet again is it depends on whether or not there was physical contact between the thief and their target victim. There was none when those kids grabbed the sign. Here's a great example I found by yet another law firm (though this one is not Washington but does have similar laws) ...

When Is Stealing From Someone A Robbery And When Is It Theft?

Two similar situations. Two similar sets of facts. But two different crimes committed, and two very different outcomes. Let’s examine the difference between the crimes of robbery and theft from a person.

Scenario Number One: a woman is seated on a bus reading a book, her purse in her lap. As the bus pulls up to a bus stop, a fellow passenger on the bus suddenly runs up to the woman, grabs the purse off her lap, and runs off the bus.

Scenario Number Two: a woman is seated on a bus reading a book, her purse in her lap. As the bus pulls up to a bus stop, a fellow passenger on the bus suddenly runs up to the woman, pushes her shoulder, grabs the purse off her lap, and runs off the bus.

In the first scenario, the suspect has committed the crime of grand theft (Penal Code section 487(c). In the second scenario, the suspect has committed the crime of robbery (Penal Code section 212.5(c)). The difference between the two crimes lies in the use of force, however slight, and the significantly different punishments and consequences following a conviction.​

Savvy?

 

[SC Patriot]

FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Unhinged

Nothing irrational about being done with dishonest assholes, and you are a fucking liar for pretending there is.


I stand by my words.


FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU LYING ASSHOLE.

Then be done. Don't just say it. You're the one derailing this thread now.

Nope. You derailed the thread with your semantics bullshit. I just called you on it, and now you are butt hurt.

LOL

Do you even know you're fucking insane?

What I did was question what was violent about stealing that sign. That question was on topic since this thread is about the violence of stealing that sign and the violent reaction.

Now you’re the one derailing this thread by trying to make it about me. That's the very definition of a forum troll, which is what you are.

Well, truth is, what was violent about it was the reaction by the one who was a victim of the crime. You see, it is easy to blame the victim for getting violent, but the victim would have never had a reason to react with violence if the crime wasn't committed.
So now the question arises. Should a victim of a crime simply stand still and let the crime be committed?
Sure, some say, reacting may cost you your life so it is best to not do anything and let the crime be committed.
But what if you have the physical superiority over the criminal? Should you let it happen anyway and claim you were afraid the 14 year old was going to pee on your leg?
Actions have consequences. Reactions to crimes should not.
Albeit...nowadays, if a guy with a knife ignores orders to drop the knife and instead continues to charge toward police, the police are guilty if they use force to stop him.
Welcome to today.

 

[OKTexas]

The kids were idiots, but he was a grown man running for office. Serious lack of judgement and self control there. If he was a 6'2" 250lb. employee seen on video body slamming a 14 year old kid, he would probably be job hunting if he were salary.

He doesn't know the age of those kids. They were the ones who were violent... a man can protect himself and his property. When does the violence from the left end, when we stand up for ourselves.

Stealing a sign is violent??

Snatch and grab robbery, yes.

"Robbery??" What are you, fucked in the head?

​

Robbery—Definition.​

​

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.[/url]​

​

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?​

You can't read?

Sure I can. Apparently, you can't answer...

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?

Just pulling the sign from the hands of another is a use of force. I guess you're just too ignorant to realize it.

.

Dumbfuck, it's not force to grab the sign that would make it a robbery... it's using force or threatening to use force against the person they're taking the sign from. What the kids committed was theft, not robbery.

Yeah, what ever cupcake. LMAO They used force to try to keep the sign and were most likely going to try to destroy it.

The is the WA state law on robbery. My B/U/color


RCW 9A.56.190
Robbery—Definition.
A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

It's pretty fucking simple, the thugs robbed the guy according to WA law. It's full stop at the first OR.

RCW 9A.56.190: Robbery—Definition.

Dumbfuck, the theft has to include violence or threat of violence. According to an imbecile like you, there's no difference between theft and robbery.

Robbery is a felony in the State of Washington - SQ Attorneys

In order for a crime to be classified as Robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present.

sqattorneys.com

​

In order for a crime to be classified as robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present:​

​

The trespassing and taking and moving of money or property from another without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the money or property (the offender doesn’t intend to return the property)​

​

There must be violence or threat of immediate violence.​

​

The taking must be from the victim or in the victim’s presence.​

You're full of shit, this is all you need from the law for that situation. No other element is required.

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another

If you disagree, then you're telling the world how illiterate you are.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, that's a Washington state lawyer explaining the law to you that you're incapable of understanding. Here's another one...

Robbery law in Washington - Blog - Black Law - Seattle criminal defense

Black Law, PLLC is a Seattle criminal defense firm representing clients across Washington State on many criminal charges, including robbery. Contact our robbery lawyers now to get the reliable and proven criminal representation you deserve.

www.blacklawseattle.com

​

In the interest of simplifying, robbery is perhaps best understood by breaking the crime down into three elements. These include:​

​

The taking of personal property from another;​

​

This taking is done against a person’s will; and,​

​

The taking is committed by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury.​

Need I post more lawyers describing this law to you or do you finally realize I was right? As much as that annoys the shit out of you.

Perhaps you should try looking up the meaning of "OR". And in this case force was used to take and an attempt to retain the property, the degree of force is immaterial. Like I said, learn how to read you illiterate asshole.

.

LOLOLOL

Now you admit, albeit unwittingly, that you don't understand how "or" clauses impact a sentence.

No worries, I can do this all day long as there's no shortage of Washington state lawyers describing the required elements of robbery. Here's a third who will attempt to educate you...

​

Robbery | Criminal Defense Lawyer | The Curtis Firm

The Curtis Firm is prepared to defend you against your Robbery charge. Call today!

www.thecurtisfirm.com

​

There must have been use of violence or threat of violence. It is usually fairly easy to establish that violence occurred if there was physical contact. It should however be noted that there is no legal baseline for how much contact suffices. Even the smallest degree of physical contact may constitute use of violence.​

So if I were to see a car where the door was unlocked, opened it up and went through the console and found a wallet with cash in it and took the cash (not the credit cards, just the cash)....Nicely closed the console with no damage to the car, closed the car door and caused no damage whatsoever, committed no act of violence, simply just took what was not mine.....that is not a crime?

What if an officer saw me do it and arrested me? Is there no case for prosecution? I did not commit an act of violence, I did not create damage to the car, I did not resist arrest. I did not commit credit card fraud. I took nothing but the cash in the wallet. All I did was capitalize on a situation where I can take what is not mine.

Are you sure there is no crime committed?

Libs just say shit. They think if they say shit, that they have created the FORM of a defense of their idea.


THey can't seem to distinguish between a SUCCESSFUL defense and a complete failure of a defense.

Dumbfuck, I've now quoted 3 law firms (so far) stating that robbery involves the use of violence or threat of violence. You know, what you mindlessly refer to as just saying shit.

Nice language.

But I noticed you did not answer my question.

So the scenario I laid out for you....there is no crime committed? So If I, say as a 250 jacked up guy in a cut off shirt, walk into a house where the door was unlocked with a woman and child there in the kitchen eating PB and J sandwiches, I offer no threat of violence...and I simply say, I am here to take your jewelry...I ransack nothing, I break nothing, I offer no threat of bodily injury....I go up to her bedroom, open her dresser draw, find her jewelry box, take her jewelry, offer her a good day and walk out. No one hurt, no one threatened and no damage done to the premises......no crime was committed?

Are you sure you are not reading your "internet findings" without bias?

Are you sure?
Really?

Sure?

You asked, "are you sure there is no crime committed?" But I never said there was no crime committed. I said robbery was not committed. Perhaps it would more beneficial if you could ask me questions based on what I say, not on what I never said? I also pointed out there are other crimes for stealing besides robbery. Theft is one.

What do you think the differences are between theft and robbery in the state of Washington?

fair enough...but the discussion was whether or not a crime was committed. Someone used the term robbery so you made the debate about what is robbery and what is not......instead of debating whether or not the adolescent was in the wrong and deserved the consequences
So you made it about semantics.......not the issue at hand
You spent you effort showing how your opponent misused a word as opposed to actually discussing if what was done was right or wrong. So the only thing gained was your ability using the internet to show how your opponent is ignorant to the law.....but nothing about the actual issue.

Good for you.

No, the freak even got that wrong, the situation that occurred in the OP was a robbery. He's just trying to argue that snatching something from another persons hands isn't violence, it is. It's no different than a purse snatcher grabbing a ladies handbag. Just overcoming a persons ability to hold on to their property is a degree of violence.

.

LOL

You're ineducable. That actually wasn't a bad analogy though I was surprised you came up with it. Still, it caused me to consider it. Where you swing and miss yet again is it depends on whether or not there was physical contact between the thief and their target victim. There was none when those kids grabbed the sign. Here's a great example I found by yet another law firm (though this one is not Washington but does have similar laws) ...

When Is Stealing From Someone A Robbery And When Is It Theft? ​

​

Two similar situations. Two similar sets of facts. But two different crimes committed, and two very different outcomes. Let’s examine the difference between the crimes of robbery and theft from a person.​

​

Scenario Number One: a woman is seated on a bus reading a book, her purse in her lap. As the bus pulls up to a bus stop, a fellow passenger on the bus suddenly runs up to the woman, grabs the purse off her lap, and runs off the bus.​

​

Scenario Number Two: a woman is seated on a bus reading a book, her purse in her lap. As the bus pulls up to a bus stop, a fellow passenger on the bus suddenly runs up to the woman, pushes her shoulder, grabs the purse off her lap, and runs off the bus.​

​

In the first scenario, the suspect has committed the crime of grand theft (Penal Code section 487(c). In the second scenario, the suspect has committed the crime of robbery (Penal Code section 212.5(c)). The difference between the two crimes lies in the use of force, however slight, and the significantly different punishments and consequences following a conviction.​

Savvy?

Now post a scenario that applies to this situation, like when the woman is holding her purse in her hands and the thief physically resists her getting it back. In the OP a physical confrontation actually occurred, you seem to be ignoring that fact.

.

 

[freyasman]

The kids were idiots, but he was a grown man running for office. Serious lack of judgement and self control there. If he was a 6'2" 250lb. employee seen on video body slamming a 14 year old kid, he would probably be job hunting if he were salary.

He doesn't know the age of those kids. They were the ones who were violent... a man can protect himself and his property. When does the violence from the left end, when we stand up for ourselves.

Stealing a sign is violent??

Snatch and grab robbery, yes.

"Robbery??" What are you, fucked in the head?

​

Robbery—Definition.​

​

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.[/url]​

​

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?​

You can't read?

Sure I can. Apparently, you can't answer...

So who did those kids threaten with force or fear of injury?

Just pulling the sign from the hands of another is a use of force. I guess you're just too ignorant to realize it.

.

Dumbfuck, it's not force to grab the sign that would make it a robbery... it's using force or threatening to use force against the person they're taking the sign from. What the kids committed was theft, not robbery.

Yeah, what ever cupcake. LMAO They used force to try to keep the sign and were most likely going to try to destroy it.

The is the WA state law on robbery. My B/U/color


RCW 9A.56.190
Robbery—Definition.
A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

It's pretty fucking simple, the thugs robbed the guy according to WA law. It's full stop at the first OR.

RCW 9A.56.190: Robbery—Definition.

Dumbfuck, the theft has to include violence or threat of violence. According to an imbecile like you, there's no difference between theft and robbery.

Robbery is a felony in the State of Washington - SQ Attorneys

In order for a crime to be classified as Robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present.

sqattorneys.com

​

In order for a crime to be classified as robbery and not a lesser crime in Washington State, there are three key elements that must be present:​

​

The trespassing and taking and moving of money or property from another without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the money or property (the offender doesn’t intend to return the property)​

​

There must be violence or threat of immediate violence.​

​

The taking must be from the victim or in the victim’s presence.​

You're full of shit, this is all you need from the law for that situation. No other element is required.

A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another

If you disagree, then you're telling the world how illiterate you are.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck, that's a Washington state lawyer explaining the law to you that you're incapable of understanding. Here's another one...

Robbery law in Washington - Blog - Black Law - Seattle criminal defense

Black Law, PLLC is a Seattle criminal defense firm representing clients across Washington State on many criminal charges, including robbery. Contact our robbery lawyers now to get the reliable and proven criminal representation you deserve.

www.blacklawseattle.com

​

In the interest of simplifying, robbery is perhaps best understood by breaking the crime down into three elements. These include:​

​

The taking of personal property from another;​

​

This taking is done against a person’s will; and,​

​

The taking is committed by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury.​

Need I post more lawyers describing this law to you or do you finally realize I was right? As much as that annoys the shit out of you.

Perhaps you should try looking up the meaning of "OR". And in this case force was used to take and an attempt to retain the property, the degree of force is immaterial. Like I said, learn how to read you illiterate asshole.

.

LOLOLOL

Now you admit, albeit unwittingly, that you don't understand how "or" clauses impact a sentence.

No worries, I can do this all day long as there's no shortage of Washington state lawyers describing the required elements of robbery. Here's a third who will attempt to educate you...

​

Robbery | Criminal Defense Lawyer | The Curtis Firm

The Curtis Firm is prepared to defend you against your Robbery charge. Call today!

www.thecurtisfirm.com

​

There must have been use of violence or threat of violence. It is usually fairly easy to establish that violence occurred if there was physical contact. It should however be noted that there is no legal baseline for how much contact suffices. Even the smallest degree of physical contact may constitute use of violence.​

So if I were to see a car where the door was unlocked, opened it up and went through the console and found a wallet with cash in it and took the cash (not the credit cards, just the cash)....Nicely closed the console with no damage to the car, closed the car door and caused no damage whatsoever, committed no act of violence, simply just took what was not mine.....that is not a crime?

What if an officer saw me do it and arrested me? Is there no case for prosecution? I did not commit an act of violence, I did not create damage to the car, I did not resist arrest. I did not commit credit card fraud. I took nothing but the cash in the wallet. All I did was capitalize on a situation where I can take what is not mine.

Are you sure there is no crime committed?

Libs just say shit. They think if they say shit, that they have created the FORM of a defense of their idea.


THey can't seem to distinguish between a SUCCESSFUL defense and a complete failure of a defense.

Dumbfuck, I've now quoted 3 law firms (so far) stating that robbery involves the use of violence or threat of violence. You know, what you mindlessly refer to as just saying shit.

Nice language.

But I noticed you did not answer my question.

So the scenario I laid out for you....there is no crime committed? So If I, say as a 250 jacked up guy in a cut off shirt, walk into a house where the door was unlocked with a woman and child there in the kitchen eating PB and J sandwiches, I offer no threat of violence...and I simply say, I am here to take your jewelry...I ransack nothing, I break nothing, I offer no threat of bodily injury....I go up to her bedroom, open her dresser draw, find her jewelry box, take her jewelry, offer her a good day and walk out. No one hurt, no one threatened and no damage done to the premises......no crime was committed?

Are you sure you are not reading your "internet findings" without bias?

Are you sure?
Really?

Sure?

You asked, "are you sure there is no crime committed?" But I never said there was no crime committed. I said robbery was not committed. Perhaps it would more beneficial if you could ask me questions based on what I say, not on what I never said? I also pointed out there are other crimes for stealing besides robbery. Theft is one.

What do you think the differences are between theft and robbery in the state of Washington?

fair enough...but the discussion was whether or not a crime was committed. Someone used the term robbery so you made the debate about what is robbery and what is not......instead of debating whether or not the adolescent was in the wrong and deserved the consequences
So you made it about semantics.......not the issue at hand
You spent you effort showing how your opponent misused a word as opposed to actually discussing if what was done was right or wrong. So the only thing gained was your ability using the internet to show how your opponent is ignorant to the law.....but nothing about the actual issue.

Good for you.

No, the freak even got that wrong, the situation that occurred in the OP was a robbery. He's just trying to argue that snatching something from another persons hands isn't violence, it is. It's no different than a purse snatcher grabbing a ladies handbag. Just overcoming a persons ability to hold on to their property is a degree of violence.

.

That was kind of my point when I initially answered her, but she ain't trying to hear that, and she's going to continue to pretend it ain't so.
So there really isn't any point in talking to her.

 

[eagle1462010]

Always remember, in the mind of the leftist, as a conservative you are not entitled to the same rights they are because you disagree with them. That's how sick they are.

They lost thier minds long ago..........the hippies from the 60s fried their brains with LSD before they were even born.