> If you think there is no distinction who would you
> rather face, a person seeking to kill you or a person
> who wants your wallet and MAY harm you if you don't
> give it to them?
The distinction we were talking about is the one that's between robbery that involves physical assault and that which doesn't -- not some strawman like the difference between robbery and rape.
I know it was a few messages ago, but you do remember writing this:
> Robbery is the #1 violent offense (~30% of total violent
> crime) in spite of the fact that the majority of robberies
> involve no physical assault to anyone.
... right? I took that to mean that you think "robbery without physical assault" (as though the mere threat *isn't* physical?!) shouldn't be a "violent" crime.
You later tried to shift gears and say something about "desire to harm others" ... but there's plenty of "violent crime" that doesn't involve this "desire" -- negligent homicide, for instance. Surely you aren't hoping we'll call that "non-violent" too?
Go make up some more words if you want. Just don't be surprised when you fail the bar.
# "Mr Thornton, here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and # tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer."
/jordan