> It wasn't convincing since you preceded or followed it with a
> mischaracterization of what I wrote.
I think you changed what you meant over time. Your most recent claim ("robbery shouldn't be lumped with crimes that involve an actual physical assault") is a strawman, because it's not "lumped" that way. It's broken out exactly as you would like it to be, if you went to any of the links provided during this thread: as separate from rape, murder, etc.
What they *dont'* do is separate out your fictitious "non-violent Robbery" from "violent Robbery" -- along an imaginary line that has (apparently) something to do with intent.
Your original claim was that "the majority of robberies involve no physical assault" which is just silly, because the threat of physical violence is itself violence. The distinction you're trying to draw -- by applying it, for example, to simple assault -- is just incorrect.
You also haven't dealt with any of the contradictions it brings up, or presented a theory about how you might determine whether the crime commited was violent or not.
Plus, you annoying continiue to misrepresent me!
> according to Jordan threatening to harm someone is the same as
> physically assaulting them
This is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that the crime of Robbery is a violent crime in all cases; that the distinction you're drawing (between Robbery that involves "actual" violence and that which does not) is a false and empty one. You may continue to draw a distinction between "the threat of punching someone and actually punching them" -- but not in the context of stealing from them. You seem to have done this N times now, which is what I call changing the subject.
If you wouldn't stop changing the subject, you wouldn't have such trouble seeing that what I am saying is correct.
/jordan