# clarification on a few scenarios



## rlay84 (Jun 16, 2006)

Good afternoon, I'm tring to grasp the differences between robbery and un-armed robbery for an exam. I'm unsure what the grey area is for the legal definitions of something being in your direct control, force, and fear when taking something from a person. I'm not looking for exact meanings, but if I could get a scenario mainly decifering the difference between a robbery and an unarmed robbery, and what you would use as grounds for deciding the difference. If my teacher gives a scenario of I am walking down Morton Street and a man on a bike approaches me and says give me your f***ing wallet. I am in fear, but there was no weapon used. What would this be and how would a police officer decide what charge to use in his/her report. Much thanks in advance. RL


----------



## PaulKersey (Nov 28, 2007)

In your scenario, it would be armed robbery only if he had _any_ type of weapon, which you thought he might use.

Your scenario would not be unarmed robbery, because he did not use any type of force, or assault you. Your scenario would have been larceny from the person.

In order to make it unarmed robbery, he would have had to have used force, such as pushing you, pulling your wallet from you, or even lifting his fist in a threatening manner {assault}. In your scenario, all he did was ask you. You had the fear, but no assault, or force- hence just larceny from the person.

If you take a womans purse from the back of her chair, it's larceny from the person. She catches you and grabs it, you pull it away from her, it's now unarmed robbery, because you used force. You show a weapon, it's now armed robbery.

If they did not actually take anything, the crime would be _attempted _robbery, _attempted _larceny etc.


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

PaulKersey said:


> Your scenario would not be unarmed robbery, because he did not use any type of force, or assault you. Your scenario would have been larceny from the person.


You really don't need an actual assault. Menacing conduct and putting in fear would be unarmed robbery.

If someone got within inches of you, said "give me your f-in wallet," that would probably be enough. Especially if he was bigger than you.

Someone who comes up to you and uses that language to steal from you isn't doing it nicely. This scenario is vague at best because a few questions directed at the victim should give you the PC for the robbery.


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

If someone walks up to you, uses harsh language as his only means to frighten you out of your wallet, and you give that person your wallet, you're *a pussy*...


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

Deuce said:


> If someone walks up to you, uses harsh language as his only means to frighten you out of your wallet, and you give that person your wallet, you're *a pussy*...


+1


----------



## PaulKersey (Nov 28, 2007)

Correct guys. I didn't want to confuse rlay84 too much, and gave him just the basics for his teacher.


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

Larceny from a person is a lesser included offense of Unarmed Robbery. All you need is menacing/intimidating conduct with fear and you have the robbery. (You don't need an assault)

Larceny from a person is a crime of stealth. (Pickpocket, taking a pocketbook from underneath a bar stool etc.)

Therefore, unless you can show an unarmed robbery, then there is no crime committed since he wasn't in fear and wasn't intimidated so he gave up the wallet voluntarily. *That is not a crime.*


----------



## PaulKersey (Nov 28, 2007)

I knew I had seen an assault requirement somewhere. This is from this years required promotional study material {MPI Desk Reference Manual}. I also confirmed the accuracy with the Mass General Laws site. 

CHAPTER 265. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

Chapter 265: Section 19. Robbery by unarmed person; Section 19. (a) Whoever, not being armed with a dangerous weapon, by force and violence, or* by assault and* putting in fear, robs, steals or takes from the person , or from his immediate control, money or other property which may be the subject of larceny, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years. 
When the robbery is made by an assault toward the victim and putting him/her in fear, the force is said to be constructive. The victim must be in real fear and apprehension to constitute this type of assault necessary for a robbery.
*This is in contrast to simple assault, which only requires a menacing or threatening gesture *regardless if the victim actually feels threatened.

Where we didn't have the assault, I suggested "Larceny from the person" assuming he didn't want to give his wallet over. The same book only has two elements for Larceny form the person- Whoever commits larceny, by stealing from the person of another.

I believe the liberal courts are slowly changing the wording -in order to make it more difficult to prosecute with the more serious charges. Maybe because they're all lawyers at heart? I wish I had saved some of the old books to compare.


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

I hear where you're coming from. But I've read case law that says all you need is "menacing conduct/intimidation and fear" to have a robbery.

If 5 punks surround an elderly woman and yell "give me your f-in purse" wouldn't that be robbery?

There is no actual assault but the menacing conduct/intimidation would be enough for the robbery.

But I've also seen unarmed robberies reduced to larceny from a person for plea bargain purposes. (And thus keeping it at the district court level)

Just my opinion...


----------



## PaulKersey (Nov 28, 2007)

94c said:


> I hear where you're coming from. But I've read case law that says all you need is "menacing conduct/intimidation and fear" to have a robbery.
> If 5 punks surround an elderly woman and yell "give me your f-in purse" wouldn't that be robbery?...


I agree 100%. I'd charge robbery all day long. That's why I wonder if the libs are making changes. 

About 9 months back, a suspect walked into 711, picked up the register, and started walking towards the door. The clerk, who was stacking shelves, ran towards the suspect -yelling at him to stop. The clerk blocked the door.
The suspect walked towards the clerk and said, " If you know what's good for you, you'll go right back there and finish stacking your shelves. Move, or I'll kill you."
The clerk let him leave. He stated he was scared and felt threatened, as the suspect was 6'2, and he was 5'7. 

The guys stopped and arrested the suspect for unarmed robbery. It went to court, along with the video recording. The guys told me that the judge was shaking his head as he watched the video.
They thought he was shaking his head at the crime, until the judge asked, " Where did you get unarmed robbery?" He then tried to have it reduced to larceny under, as there was only $90.00 in the register.
When the DA explained that it was at least larceny over because of the register's value, the judge smirked and asked for a receipt showing the register's value.
It's a joke, and the court system is only getting worse. I feel like I'm back in the 70's watching 'Let's Make A Deal'. Needless to say, the suspect was arrested twice since then.


----------

