The definition of robbery varies by state. In common law it involves force. Also in Illinois staute: it is "tak[ing] property . . . from the person or presence of another by use of force or by threatening the imment use of force." 720 ILCS 5/18-1.
This is a seperate offense in Illlinois from armed robbery, which is robbery plus carrying on or about one's person a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or personally discharges a firearm, or during commussion of the offense personally discharges a firearm proximately causing great bodily harm, etc. to another. Id. Sec 5/18-2.
There's also AggravatedRibbery, 5/18-5, taking property from the person or presense of another by the use of force or threatening the imminent use of force while indicating verbally or by one's action taht one is presently armedwith a firearm ore other dangerous weapon, whether or not the defendant had such a weapon.
--- jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On 4 May 2006 at 12:50, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>
> > Sometimes I don't know why I bother with stuff
> like this, but ...
> >
> > > To consider that a "robbery with a weapon" is to
> make that
> > > phrase meaningless.
> >
> > It's already meaningless: robbery is ALWAYS
> VIOLENT. It's in the
> > definition of robbery. Look it up! You got
> charged with it, you ought
> > to at least know what it means. Adding a firearm
> to the mix is just an
> > aggrivating circumstance. This has nothing to do
> with whether you had
> > your gun with you; it has to do with why you were
> charged with robbery
> > instead of something else. I'm sure one of the
> lawyers on the list
> > will pop up, but this has got to be a law school
> level mistake: there's
> > no robbery if there's no person.
> >
> > Are you sure you got charged with robbery?
>
> I should have been charged with misdemeanor stealing
> since the top was valued at about $280. It was only
> a type 121 after all. Barring that, felony stealing.
> Since the upholstery was vinyl and had been rained
> on
> many times before it wasn't ruined. If it had been
> ruined and needed replacing then felony stealing
> would
> have been appropriate in a legal sense. It was
> robbery because the car was in his drive and he was
> home.
> The prosecutor likened it to stealing from his house
> while he was home, a robbery. An incorrect
> comparison
> but hey, it wasn't mine. The weapon should never
> have figured into the equation. You are being very
> charitable calling it a mistake. I prefer
> institutional racism as a better explanation. Maybe
> Andie would care
> to comment?
Nope, that would be unlicensed practice of law. I have no idea in your state, whatever it is, how much what you steal has to be worth to make that alone the basis for elevatinga crime to felony status. If what you did was robbery in a sense like that used in Illinois, and the law of your state was like Illinois', there was no dollar amount necessary to make the taking a felony, s far as I can see from reading the statute. Which may not even remotely apply in your case.
If the gun wasn't on or near your person, under Illinois law in a hypothetically similar fact pattern, it is hard to see how you would have committed armed robbery or aggravated robbery under an Illinois statute, though I don't know the case law and so don't know how "carries on or about [one's] person" has been interpreted. In the hypothetical fact pattern the defendent carried a Swiss Army knife, right? Arguably a "dangerous weapon." The Illinois robbery statutes on their face require that the defendant take the property from the person or presence of another, but I don't know how the case law has interpreted "presence," whether it includes, e.g., taking the property from his home when he's not there or when he's inside the home and doesn't know about the taking
> What else if not a prank? I didn't steal it to sell
> for money or to use myself. There was no "paycheck"
> in it for
> me. It was revenge for a slight.
I am not sure that thsi is relevant -- again, under Illinois robbery law, on the face of the statute it would not appear to be relevant.
In time it would
> have been probably dumped back on his front lawn.
So it's not robbery if you take something from someone by force oir threat of force but "probably" would have given it back?
Overlimit, offline
jks
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com