Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,947
- 9,980
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Michael Brown had robbed a Quick Trip just before the fatal shooting
- Thread starter Remodeling Maidiac
- Start date
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
- Dec 15, 2010
- 87,359
- 37,492
did you watch the quickie mart video? I see what looks like a bottle of water in his hand. Where are the cigars?
The reason you dont see cigars is because you're looking for a small box.
He took fifty bucks worth of cigars according to the store owner.
Which is just as irrelevant to the case today as it was yesterday, and will forever be irrelevant.
No it's not irrelevant. It shows his character and propensity for violence.
- Jul 21, 2009
- 133,129
- 69,791
It only shows one side of him. I know that side frightens you.
You mean the side that likes to steal shit and assault people half his size?
That's the only side I need to see to know he's not some misunderstood "gentle giant"
No one has been able to prove the clerk didnt start the altercation. He is wrong for stealing the stuff but he didnt do anything overly dramatic. He grabbed the guy and pushed him away. If he was mean it could have been a lot worse. If you consider that assault please turn in your man card if you still have one.
Actually it's pretty clear that theft was involved and the clerk did what he could to prevent Brown from leaving. So Brown assaulted him. He didn't batter him, but if this was on the street it would be classified as a mugging. It's robbery:
Robbery
The taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation.
Robbery is a crime of theft and can be classified as Larceny by force or by threat of force. The elements of the crime of robbery include the use of force or intimidation and all the elements of the crime of larceny. The penalty for robbery is always more severe than for larceny.
The general elements of robbery are the taking of Personal Property or money from the person or presence of another, the use of actual or constructive force, the lack of consent on the part of the victim, and the intent to steal on the part of the offender. Neither deliberation nor premeditation is necessary, nor is an express demand for the property.
Robbery requires a taking of property from the person or presence of the victim, which means that the taking must be from the victim's possession, whether actual or constructive. Property is on the victim's person if it is in his hand, in the pocket of the clothing he wears, or otherwise attached to his body or clothing. The phrase "from the presence" or "in the presence" has been construed to mean proximity or control rather than within eyesight of the victim. For example, a robber takes property from the victim's presence if the robber locks the victim in one room and then takes the valuable from another room. There is sufficient proximity even though the victim cannot see through the walls into the room where the valuables are stored.
The property taken must be close enough to the victim and sufficiently under his control that had the robber not used violence or intimidation, the victim could have prevented the taking. As an example, if a robber uses force to immobilize a property owner at one place while an Accomplice takes the owner's property from a place several miles away, the distance between the owner and the owner's property is such that the owner could not have prevented the taking even if he had been free to try to interfere.
A robbery must also include a taking or asportation, a carrying away by which the goods are taken from the victim's possession and transferred to the possession of the robber. The crime is complete when the robber acquires possession of the property, even for a short time. The robber does not have to transport the property away from the physical presence of the person who has lawful possession of it or even escape with it. The slightest change of location is sufficient to establish asportation. Once the robber takes possession of the property, the offense is complete, even if the robber later abandons the property.
The personal property that is taken must have some value, but the amount of its value is immaterial. The crime of robbery can be committed even if the property taken is of slight value. Actual monetary value is not essential as long as it appears that the property had some value to the person robbed.
The property does not have to be taken from the owner or holder of legal title. The robber may rob someone who has possession or custody of property, though that person is not the owner of it. The person from whom the property was taken must have exerted control over it.
The taking must be accomplished either by force or by intimidation. This element is the essence and distinguishing characteristic of the offense. Taking by force without intimidation is robbery. Taking by intimidation without the use of actual force is also robbery. Force and intimidation are alternate requirements, and either is sufficient without the other.
The force must be sufficient to effect the transfer of the property from the victim to the robber. It must amount to actual personal violence. The line between robbery and larceny from the person is not always easy to draw. For example, when a thief snatches a purse from the owner's grasp so suddenly that the owner cannot offer any resistance to the taking, the force involved is not sufficient to constitute robbery. Hence that crime would be larceny. If a struggle for the purse ensues before the thief can gain possession of it, however, there is enough force to make the taking robbery. The same is true of pick-pocketing. If the victim is unaware of the taking, no robbery has occurred and the crime is larceny. But if the victim catches the pickpocket in the act and struggles unsuccessfully to keep possession, the pickpocket's crime becomes robbery.
The particular degree of force becomes important only when considered in connection with the grade of the offense or the punishment to be imposed. Evidence establishing a personal injury or a blow, or force sufficient to overcome any resistance the victim was capable of offering, is not required.
A robber may also render the victim helpless by more subtle means. Constructive force includes demonstrations of force, menace, and other means that prevent a victim from exercising free will or resisting the taking of property. Administering intoxicating liquors or drugs in order to produce a state of unconsciousness or stupefaction is using force for purposes of robbery. Constructive force will support a robbery charge.
Intimidation means putting in fear. The accused must intentionally cause the fear and induce a reasonable apprehension of danger, but not necessarily a great terror, panic, or hysteria in the victim. The fear must be strong enough to overcome the victim's resistance and cause the victim to part with the property. The victim who is not fearful of harm from the robber so long as she does what the robber says, but who expects harm if she refuses, is nevertheless "put in fear" for the purposes of robbery.
Putting the victim in fear of bodily injury is sufficient. The fear can be aroused by words or gestures, such as threatening the victim with a weapon. The threat of immediate bodily injury or death does not have to be directed at the owner of the property. It may be made to a member of the owner's family, other relatives, or even someone in the owner's company.The force or intimidation must either precede or be contemporaneous with the taking to constitute a robbery. Violence or intimidation after the taking is not robbery. If, however, the force occurs so soon after the taking that it forms part of the same transaction, the violence is legally concurrent with the taking. Force or intimidation employed after the taking and merely as a means of escape is not a sufficient basis for a robbery charge.
Unless a statute provides otherwise, a robbery cannot be committed without criminal intent. The robber must have a Specific Intent to rob the owner of the property. The element of force or intimidation is not a substitute for the intent to steal.
The offender's intent must be determined from his or her words and actions. A person who forcibly takes property by mistake or merely as a joke, without an intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently, is not guilty of robbery. The intent to steal must be present at the time the property is taken, but premeditation is not part of the criminal intent necessary for the commission of robbery.
Most robbery statutes distinguish between simple robbery and aggravated robbery. The most common aggravating factors are that the robber was armed with a deadly weapon or represented that he or she had a gun, that the robber actually inflicted serious bodily injury, or that the robber had an accomplice.
There are three important federal robbery statutes. The Federal Bank Robbery Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 2113) punishes robbery of property in the custody or possession of any national bank or of any bank that is insured by the federal government. Two provisions (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2112, 2114) punish robbery when the property taken is from the U.S. mail or is property belonging to the federal government. The Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1951) punishes the obstruction of interstate commerce by robbery. robbery legal definition of robbery
The taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation.
Robbery is a crime of theft and can be classified as Larceny by force or by threat of force. The elements of the crime of robbery include the use of force or intimidation and all the elements of the crime of larceny. The penalty for robbery is always more severe than for larceny.
The general elements of robbery are the taking of Personal Property or money from the person or presence of another, the use of actual or constructive force, the lack of consent on the part of the victim, and the intent to steal on the part of the offender. Neither deliberation nor premeditation is necessary, nor is an express demand for the property.
Robbery requires a taking of property from the person or presence of the victim, which means that the taking must be from the victim's possession, whether actual or constructive. Property is on the victim's person if it is in his hand, in the pocket of the clothing he wears, or otherwise attached to his body or clothing. The phrase "from the presence" or "in the presence" has been construed to mean proximity or control rather than within eyesight of the victim. For example, a robber takes property from the victim's presence if the robber locks the victim in one room and then takes the valuable from another room. There is sufficient proximity even though the victim cannot see through the walls into the room where the valuables are stored.
The property taken must be close enough to the victim and sufficiently under his control that had the robber not used violence or intimidation, the victim could have prevented the taking. As an example, if a robber uses force to immobilize a property owner at one place while an Accomplice takes the owner's property from a place several miles away, the distance between the owner and the owner's property is such that the owner could not have prevented the taking even if he had been free to try to interfere.
A robbery must also include a taking or asportation, a carrying away by which the goods are taken from the victim's possession and transferred to the possession of the robber. The crime is complete when the robber acquires possession of the property, even for a short time. The robber does not have to transport the property away from the physical presence of the person who has lawful possession of it or even escape with it. The slightest change of location is sufficient to establish asportation. Once the robber takes possession of the property, the offense is complete, even if the robber later abandons the property.
The personal property that is taken must have some value, but the amount of its value is immaterial. The crime of robbery can be committed even if the property taken is of slight value. Actual monetary value is not essential as long as it appears that the property had some value to the person robbed.
The property does not have to be taken from the owner or holder of legal title. The robber may rob someone who has possession or custody of property, though that person is not the owner of it. The person from whom the property was taken must have exerted control over it.
The taking must be accomplished either by force or by intimidation. This element is the essence and distinguishing characteristic of the offense. Taking by force without intimidation is robbery. Taking by intimidation without the use of actual force is also robbery. Force and intimidation are alternate requirements, and either is sufficient without the other.
The force must be sufficient to effect the transfer of the property from the victim to the robber. It must amount to actual personal violence. The line between robbery and larceny from the person is not always easy to draw. For example, when a thief snatches a purse from the owner's grasp so suddenly that the owner cannot offer any resistance to the taking, the force involved is not sufficient to constitute robbery. Hence that crime would be larceny. If a struggle for the purse ensues before the thief can gain possession of it, however, there is enough force to make the taking robbery. The same is true of pick-pocketing. If the victim is unaware of the taking, no robbery has occurred and the crime is larceny. But if the victim catches the pickpocket in the act and struggles unsuccessfully to keep possession, the pickpocket's crime becomes robbery.
The particular degree of force becomes important only when considered in connection with the grade of the offense or the punishment to be imposed. Evidence establishing a personal injury or a blow, or force sufficient to overcome any resistance the victim was capable of offering, is not required.
A robber may also render the victim helpless by more subtle means. Constructive force includes demonstrations of force, menace, and other means that prevent a victim from exercising free will or resisting the taking of property. Administering intoxicating liquors or drugs in order to produce a state of unconsciousness or stupefaction is using force for purposes of robbery. Constructive force will support a robbery charge.
Intimidation means putting in fear. The accused must intentionally cause the fear and induce a reasonable apprehension of danger, but not necessarily a great terror, panic, or hysteria in the victim. The fear must be strong enough to overcome the victim's resistance and cause the victim to part with the property. The victim who is not fearful of harm from the robber so long as she does what the robber says, but who expects harm if she refuses, is nevertheless "put in fear" for the purposes of robbery.
Putting the victim in fear of bodily injury is sufficient. The fear can be aroused by words or gestures, such as threatening the victim with a weapon. The threat of immediate bodily injury or death does not have to be directed at the owner of the property. It may be made to a member of the owner's family, other relatives, or even someone in the owner's company.The force or intimidation must either precede or be contemporaneous with the taking to constitute a robbery. Violence or intimidation after the taking is not robbery. If, however, the force occurs so soon after the taking that it forms part of the same transaction, the violence is legally concurrent with the taking. Force or intimidation employed after the taking and merely as a means of escape is not a sufficient basis for a robbery charge.
Unless a statute provides otherwise, a robbery cannot be committed without criminal intent. The robber must have a Specific Intent to rob the owner of the property. The element of force or intimidation is not a substitute for the intent to steal.
The offender's intent must be determined from his or her words and actions. A person who forcibly takes property by mistake or merely as a joke, without an intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently, is not guilty of robbery. The intent to steal must be present at the time the property is taken, but premeditation is not part of the criminal intent necessary for the commission of robbery.
Most robbery statutes distinguish between simple robbery and aggravated robbery. The most common aggravating factors are that the robber was armed with a deadly weapon or represented that he or she had a gun, that the robber actually inflicted serious bodily injury, or that the robber had an accomplice.
There are three important federal robbery statutes. The Federal Bank Robbery Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 2113) punishes robbery of property in the custody or possession of any national bank or of any bank that is insured by the federal government. Two provisions (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2112, 2114) punish robbery when the property taken is from the U.S. mail or is property belonging to the federal government. The Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1951) punishes the obstruction of interstate commerce by robbery. robbery legal definition of robbery
Asclepias
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2013
- 114,820
- 18,670
Is this a good reason for segregation? Black communities should only have black police officers. White communities have white police officers.
Racist.
Mertex how come you haven't called Asclepias a racist? He is making most of the racist remarks in this thread.
Stop whining. You sound pathetic. What have I said that was racist?
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2011
- 77,322
- 37,334
The problem here is that whites are seeing this from the perspective that Brown in that video was aggressive and appears to have pushed an innocent clerk in a threatening fashion and maybe even took items without paying for them.
Blacks are looking at it from the perspective that they've been intimidated and treated as less than persons in this town and their need to push back.
Brown doesn't show a very likable person in the video, but I don't know if it's true that he was trying to grab the cop's gun, or if the cop, already in attack mode might have elevated the situation to the level that he did.
I think we need unbiased authorities to examine all the available evidence/videos before making a rash decision. This black/white animosity needs to end or we will end up with another civil war and more innocent people are going to die over something that can be made better.
The perspective of blacks is that the clerk should never have called the police in the first place. The surveillance camera is racist. Having such a camera is racist. Preventing theft is racist. Theft is a cost of doing business right out of the profits that the rich store owner makes on the backs of the working poor that has to pay for goods.
When the store doesn't reopen that will be racist too.
No, only this post is ignorant and racist.
Blacks dont perceive anything as a single, monolithic entity.
Whether you believe it or not, like it or not, racism in fact exists, no matter how much you whine that it doesnt.
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
- Dec 15, 2010
- 87,359
- 37,492
Obama Admin Told Ferguson Police NOT to Release Robbery Video
BREAKING: Obama Admin Told Ferguson Police NOT to Release Robbery Video - Tea Party Command Center
Gee,imagine that..
obammy is a complete joke of a president.
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
- Dec 15, 2010
- 87,359
- 37,492
No one has been able to prove the clerk didnt start the altercation. He is wrong for stealing the stuff but he didnt do anything overly dramatic. He grabbed the guy and pushed him away. If he was mean it could have been a lot worse. If you consider that assault please turn in your man card if you still have one.
Is it the fault of the clerk for calling the police in the first place? He should have just allowed himself to be robbed and throttled because Michael Brown is black?
Why would it be his fault? It looked to me like Brown stole the cigars. What was he going to do besides get hurt trying to stop him? Insurance would cover any losses. Thats what makes me think there was an verbal altercation at the counter. I know from experience how fucking rude some of those store owners are in the ghetto.
Stop with the insurance shit. I cant believe you're so damn stupid you think his deductible is less than fifty bucks.
He'd have to pay for those out of pocket.
Asclepias
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2013
- 114,820
- 18,670
Obama Admin Told Ferguson Police NOT to Release Robbery Video
BREAKING: Obama Admin Told Ferguson Police NOT to Release Robbery Video - Tea Party Command Center
Gee,imagine that..
obammy is a complete joke of a president.
That was actually a good idea to tell them not to release the video. You are stupid. They released the video in an attempt to smear Brown and looters take advantage of the situation again. Real smart.
Asclepias
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2013
- 114,820
- 18,670
Is it the fault of the clerk for calling the police in the first place? He should have just allowed himself to be robbed and throttled because Michael Brown is black?
Why would it be his fault? It looked to me like Brown stole the cigars. What was he going to do besides get hurt trying to stop him? Insurance would cover any losses. Thats what makes me think there was an verbal altercation at the counter. I know from experience how fucking rude some of those store owners are in the ghetto.
Stop with the insurance shit. I cant believe you're so damn stupid you think his deductible is less than fifty bucks.
He'd have to pay for those out of pocket.
Tax write off dumbass. We can tell you dont know anything about business.
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
- Dec 15, 2010
- 87,359
- 37,492
I think I'd like to wait for the autopsy to come out and wait until all the witnesses are interviewed before I draw any conclusions.
Stealing cigars is not a death penalty offense, last time I checked.
Assaulting a cop and trying to take his weapon is.
Actually not.
Cite a case in Missouri where someone convicted of assaulting a LEO was put to death.
In the United States all persons are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that goes for both Brown and Wilson; and they are entitled to due process accordingly, meaning that a determination of guilt is not realized until all the evidence is reviewed and the facts determined.
That you and others on the right have such contempt for due process and the rule of law is bizarre and telling, in addition to your fear of the truth as to what actually happened, you seek to condemn Brown absent all the facts and evidence.
What is it that you and many on the right are so afraid of, should it be determined that the officer acted unlawfully.
Dirt Nap Mike is dead isn't he? Yep....death sentence,carried out immediately saving the tax payer the expense of housing his sorry ass for twenty years.
Manonthestreet
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2014
- 35,274
- 23,784
Smear looters???? Fed govt has enough on its plate without messing in local law enforcement
Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 34,874
- 19,412
The problem here is that he was not 'put to death'....I think I'd like to wait for the autopsy to come out and wait until all the witnesses are interviewed before I draw any conclusions.
Stealing cigars is not a death penalty offense, last time I checked.
Assaulting a cop and trying to take his weapon is.
Actually not.
Cite a case in Missouri where someone convicted of assaulting a LEO was put to death.
In the United States all persons are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that goes for both Brown and Wilson; and they are entitled to due process accordingly, meaning that a determination of guilt is not realized until all the evidence is reviewed and the facts determined.
That you and others on the right have such contempt for due process and the rule of law is bizarre and telling, in addition to your fear of the truth as to what actually happened, you seek to condemn Brown absent all the facts and evidence.
What is it that you and many on the right are so afraid of, should it be determined that the officer acted unlawfully.
The phrase means that the state convicted and killed him.
The reality is that the kid got himself shot and killed for resisting....
Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 34,874
- 19,412
Brown smeared himself by committing a crime. Nothing can change that fact.Obama Admin Told Ferguson Police NOT to Release Robbery Video
BREAKING: Obama Admin Told Ferguson Police NOT to Release Robbery Video - Tea Party Command Center
Gee,imagine that..
obammy is a complete joke of a president.
That was actually a good idea to tell them not to release the video. You are stupid. They released the video in an attempt to smear Brown and looters take advantage of the situation again. Real smart.
Manonthestreet
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2014
- 35,274
- 23,784
Newlywed Missouri firefighter shot dead by off-duty police officer outside his wedding reception 'after fight over cab fare' Newlywed Missouri firefighter shot dead by off-duty police officer outside his wedding reception 'after fight over cab fare' | Mail Online
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
- Dec 15, 2010
- 87,359
- 37,492
Obama Admin Told Ferguson Police NOT to Release Robbery Video
BREAKING: Obama Admin Told Ferguson Police NOT to Release Robbery Video - Tea Party Command Center
Gee,imagine that..
obammy is a complete joke of a president.
That was actually a good idea to tell them not to release the video. You are stupid. They released the video in an attempt to smear Brown and looters take advantage of the situation again. Real smart.
There you go again thinking I give a shit if they tear up their own neighborhood because a video showing Dirt Nap Mike in a bad light comes out.
Why are you and obammy trying to suppress evidence? Maybe to make Dirt Nap Mike look better in the public eye?
Asclepias
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2013
- 114,820
- 18,670
Brown smeared himself by committing a crime. Nothing can change that fact.Gee,imagine that..
obammy is a complete joke of a president.
That was actually a good idea to tell them not to release the video. You are stupid. They released the video in an attempt to smear Brown and looters take advantage of the situation again. Real smart.
Timing is everything. That was intentionally done. Anyone with common sense would know it was going to enrage people and cause more riots. They could have released before or during the trial. The excuse the chief gave was BS. That was a coordinated attempt to bridge that incident with the shooting.
Asclepias
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2013
- 114,820
- 18,670
Gee,imagine that..
obammy is a complete joke of a president.
That was actually a good idea to tell them not to release the video. You are stupid. They released the video in an attempt to smear Brown and looters take advantage of the situation again. Real smart.
There you go again thinking I give a shit if they tear up their own neighborhood because a video showing Dirt Nap Mike in a bad light comes out.
Why are you and obammy trying to suppress evidence? Maybe to make Dirt Nap Mike look better in the public eye?
So you must be happy the shop owners were looted then?
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
- Dec 15, 2010
- 87,359
- 37,492
Newlywed Missouri firefighter shot dead by off-duty police officer outside his wedding reception 'after fight over cab fare' Newlywed Missouri firefighter shot dead by off-duty police officer outside his wedding reception 'after fight over cab fare' | Mail Online
Sounds like he got what he had coming....wait,are we supposed to riot now?
Manonthestreet
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2014
- 35,274
- 23,784
So black people get enraged when other black people committing crimes are exposed.......and they wonder why they have so much crime
Asclepias
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2013
- 114,820
- 18,670
Newlywed Missouri firefighter shot dead by off-duty police officer outside his wedding reception 'after fight over cab fare' Newlywed Missouri firefighter shot dead by off-duty police officer outside his wedding reception 'after fight over cab fare' | Mail Online
Sounds like he got what he had coming....wait,are we supposed to riot now?
Did a Black officer shoot him after years of Black officers shooting white kids? If so have at it.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 234
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 106
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 97
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 211
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 9
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8510
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-