Kid gets body slammed by congressional candidate

[SC Patriot]

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?

Where did I say no crime was committed?

You do know there are other crimes for stealing besides "robbery," don't you?

Oh. Now I see.

Your debate tactic involves semantics.

Now I get it.

You win because the opposition used the wrong word.

Ah.

Cute.

 

[BS Filter]

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?

I put that dipshit on ignore a long time ago.

 

[SC Patriot]

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?

Where did I say no crime was committed?

You do know there are other crimes for stealing besides "robbery," don't you?

Now I get it. You are one of those debaters that will say "You used quotes where you paraphrased" so your post holds no water...and then you spend your time telling your opponent that he/she doesnt now the difference between quoting and paraphrasing as opposed to using your time to debate the actual issue.

You are one of those cowards.

Now I get it.

Cya.

 

[SC Patriot]

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?

I put that dipshit on ignore a long time ago.

I dont put anyone on ignore. I am more than willing to see what they have to say. Sometimes, they give me reason to pause and reconsider. Sometimes

 

[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?

 

[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?

Where did I say no crime was committed?

You do know there are other crimes for stealing besides "robbery," don't you?

Now I get it. You are one of those debaters that will say "You used quotes where you paraphrased" so your post holds no water...and then you spend your time telling your opponent that he/she doesnt now the difference between quoting and paraphrasing as opposed to using your time to debate the actual issue.

You are one of those cowards.

Now I get it.

Cya.

LOL

You didn't even paraphrase anything I said as I never said no crime was committed. Are you capable of manning up and admitting when you make a mistake?

 

[SC Patriot]

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.

 

[BS Filter]

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?

I put that dipshit on ignore a long time ago.

I dont put anyone on ignore. I am more than willing to see what they have to say. Sometimes, they give me reason to pause and reconsider. Sometimes

You're a saint. I don't have time to waste on stupid people.

 

[SC Patriot]

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?

Where did I say no crime was committed?

You do know there are other crimes for stealing besides "robbery," don't you?

Now I get it. You are one of those debaters that will say "You used quotes where you paraphrased" so your post holds no water...and then you spend your time telling your opponent that he/she doesnt now the difference between quoting and paraphrasing as opposed to using your time to debate the actual issue.

You are one of those cowards.

Now I get it.

Cya.

LOL

You didn't even paraphrase anything I said as I never said no crime was committed. Are you capable of manning up and admitting when you make a mistake?

The debate was whether or not a crime was committed. You chose to play semantics, stray from the topic of the debate and, inst6ead, identify the term robbery. Sorry, I do not go back to read every little post of every person.
Did I make a mistake? Perhaps....but certainly not one I need to learn from.
The only mistake I made is the fact that I did not realize you strayed from the topic to play the semantics game.
I will avoid responding to your gibberish next time.

 

[Correll]

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.

Got it. You can't defend your side's actual ACTIONS, so you instead divert the discuss to a question of semantics.


NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR WORD GAMES. YOU ARE SIDING WITH THIEVING PUNKS AND THEIR ASSHOLE PARENTS INSTEAD OF THE VICTIM AS ALWAYS.

 

[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?

Where did I say no crime was committed?

You do know there are other crimes for stealing besides "robbery," don't you?

Now I get it. You are one of those debaters that will say "You used quotes where you paraphrased" so your post holds no water...and then you spend your time telling your opponent that he/she doesnt now the difference between quoting and paraphrasing as opposed to using your time to debate the actual issue.

You are one of those cowards.

Now I get it.

Cya.

LOL

You didn't even paraphrase anything I said as I never said no crime was committed. Are you capable of manning up and admitting when you make a mistake?

The debate was whether or not a crime was committed. You chose to play semantics, stray from the topic of the debate and, inst6ead, identify the term robbery. Sorry, I do not go back to read every little post of every person.
Did I make a mistake? Perhaps....but certainly not one I need to learn from.
The only mistake I made is the fact that I did not realize you strayed from the topic to play the semantics game.
I will avoid responding to your gibberish next time.

Great, now you’re mischaracterizing the debate. The conversation of which I interjected was about whether or not those kids were behaving violently, not if they stole the sign. I never questioned if they stole the sign, only what was violent about stealing it.That led someone to answer it was "robbery," which would have to include either violence or threat of violence. So I posted the law describing robbery to show it was not a robbery. That led someone, ignorant of the law, to bitch & moan that I am interpreting that law incorrectly; which in turn, led me to post 3 different law firms confirming my interpretation of that law.

So I neither strayed from the discussion nor did I devolve into semantics. But as you admit, you have no desire to learn from this mistake. I can live with that.

 

[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.

Got it. You can't defend your side's actual ACTIONS, so you instead divert the discuss to a question of semantics.


NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR WORD GAMES. YOU ARE SIDING WITH THIEVING PUNKS AND THEIR ASSHOLE PARENTS INSTEAD OF THE VICTIM AS ALWAYS.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

 

[SC Patriot]

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?

Where did I say no crime was committed?

You do know there are other crimes for stealing besides "robbery," don't you?

Now I get it. You are one of those debaters that will say "You used quotes where you paraphrased" so your post holds no water...and then you spend your time telling your opponent that he/she doesnt now the difference between quoting and paraphrasing as opposed to using your time to debate the actual issue.

You are one of those cowards.

Now I get it.

Cya.

LOL

You didn't even paraphrase anything I said as I never said no crime was committed. Are you capable of manning up and admitting when you make a mistake?

The debate was whether or not a crime was committed. You chose to play semantics, stray from the topic of the debate and, inst6ead, identify the term robbery. Sorry, I do not go back to read every little post of every person.
Did I make a mistake? Perhaps....but certainly not one I need to learn from.
The only mistake I made is the fact that I did not realize you strayed from the topic to play the semantics game.
I will avoid responding to your gibberish next time.

Great, now you’re mischaracterizing the debate. The conversation of which I interjected was about whether or not those kids were behaving violently, not if they stole the sign. I never questioned if they stole the sign, only what was violent about stealing it.That led someone to answer it was "robbery," which would have to include either violence or threat of violence. So I posted the law describing robbery to show it was not a robbery. That led someone, ignorant of the law, to bitch & moan that I am interpreting that law incorrectly; which in turn, led me to post 3 different law firms confirming my interpretation of that law.

So I neither strayed from the discussion nor did I devolve into semantics. But as you admit, you have no desire to learn from this mistake. I can live with that.

Fair enough criticism. I did not take the time to review all posts and as a result, I criticized your post. I was wrong and I admit it. I apologize. I mean that. I was wrong....and yes, I learned from it.

 

[Correll]

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.

 

[Correll]

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.

Got it. You can't defend your side's actual ACTIONS, so you instead divert the discuss to a question of semantics.


NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR WORD GAMES. YOU ARE SIDING WITH THIEVING PUNKS AND THEIR ASSHOLE PARENTS INSTEAD OF THE VICTIM AS ALWAYS.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

"Triggered" implies being irrationally upset or angry over something innocent or small.


When liberals, like yourself are assholes and people get angry with you because of your asshole behavior, that is not irrational, but instead a healthy and normal response.


Which you well know. You are now piling LYING on top of being an asshole.


YOu are a lying asshole. FUck off and die. FUcktard.

 

[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?

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.

 

[Correll]

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.

 

[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.

Got it. You can't defend your side's actual ACTIONS, so you instead divert the discuss to a question of semantics.


NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR WORD GAMES. YOU ARE SIDING WITH THIEVING PUNKS AND THEIR ASSHOLE PARENTS INSTEAD OF THE VICTIM AS ALWAYS.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

"Triggered" implies being irrationally upset or angry over something innocent or small.


When liberals, like yourself are assholes and people get angry with you because of your asshole behavior, that is not irrational, but instead a healthy and normal response.


Which you well know. You are now piling LYING on top of being an asshole.


YOu are a lying asshole. FUck off and die. FUcktard.

When someone posts in all caps, I view that as unhinged. Post in all caps and in bold -- yeah, that's triggered. Totally triggered.

And no, I didn't lie and no, I will not fuck off and die. Sorry to disappoint you ... but ... not really sorry.

 

[Correll]

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.

Got it. You can't defend your side's actual ACTIONS, so you instead divert the discuss to a question of semantics.


NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR WORD GAMES. YOU ARE SIDING WITH THIEVING PUNKS AND THEIR ASSHOLE PARENTS INSTEAD OF THE VICTIM AS ALWAYS.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

"Triggered" implies being irrationally upset or angry over something innocent or small.


When liberals, like yourself are assholes and people get angry with you because of your asshole behavior, that is not irrational, but instead a healthy and normal response.


Which you well know. You are now piling LYING on top of being an asshole.


YOu are a lying asshole. FUck off and die. FUcktard.

When someone posts in all caps, I view that as unhinged. Post in all caps and in bold -- yeah, that's triggered. Totally triggered.

And no, I didn't lie and no, I will not fuck off and die. Sorry to disappoint you ... but ... not really sorry.

BULLSHIT. You are making that up to justify your misuse of the word "triggered".

See, you used the wrong word. THat means I win the debate.

FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.

 

[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?

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...