Jump to content

Talk:Robbery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lists

[edit]

Kind of would be fun to have a list of largest robberies in each and every country. Or even the damn ones for that matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 November 2004‎

Largest British robbery

[edit]

Is the BBC link obsolete, after the £26.5m Northern Bank robbery last December?


Robber masks

[edit]

What's the history of these masks? You know, the stereotypical "thug" black cloth mask with eyeholes, that you see the McDonals Hamburglar wearing.

Check Balaclava 213.114.96.86 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think s/he means a "domino mask" aka a "half mask".

Bandit

[edit]

Bandit redirects here, but wasn't there a 80's movie named Bandit? Shouldn't there be a disbiguation (sic) page?--Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 10:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, why IS bandit redirected here? A Bandit is the one doing the robbery, not the action itself. Maybe it should redirect to Outlaw or Thief instead? Ageofe 03:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Actual or threatened force against the person

[edit]
This section of the article is comletely blank. I can't find where there wa anything there recently in the history —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EMT1871 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

punishments of common robbery

[edit]

punishment of robbery is decided due to the following ;1- if the perp etrator used force or —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.232.128.10 (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is taxation a form of robbery?

[edit]

In this article I encountered the unsourced statement, "Taxation is a form of robbery used by government authorities." At first I decided to use the Declaration of Independence as a source, but then changed my mind. What's the best way to fix this statement to neutralize its POV? 38.100.34.2 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove it, robbery by definition does not include taxation. LDHan 15:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Clean Up and Reorganization

[edit]

I propose to make the following changes to this article. I'll leave this post on the discussion board for a few days to see if anyone objects, before actually making the changes.

First, Robbery is not only an English law subject. It's a common law crime. Therefore, I will remove the template EngCrimLaw. I will replace it with the teimplate CrimLaw.

Second, I will reorganize the article to this format:

  • Common law definition
  • English Law
  • U.S. Law
  • Misc.

Finally, I will remove the etymology section and replace it with a cite directly following the word robbery which will reference the same information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G77 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+1--I was (am) a little confused by the description being UK centric. There is nothing wrong with the UK being covered or even central, but:

  • it should be clear (I missed it at first) that a major part of the article focused on the UK
  • other jurisdictions should be covered (or provision for such coverage)
  • and a general coverage should exist, stuff that is common to all or most jurisdictions (or is just a general description of "Robbery"--maybe that is covered sufficiently in the introduction to the article.--Ahh, looks like your common law section will cover that.

Thanks for your (planned) efforts! Rhkramer (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

Something doesn't belong:

"John Deli will be receiving 10 years federal time because he broke and entered, stole alot of money and waived to the camera... It was also a former employer of his. The 49ers will win a Super Bowl before he is released.. With good behavior he will be out in 7..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack The Fisherman (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd mention that "roobaah" is Persian for fox, which is known to steal. Maybe someone should look into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskavist (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purse snatching issue

[edit]

Although I agreed with user Dontopenyoureyes that the paragraph is poorly executed, I reverted his deletion because it is used by courts (in the USA at least) as a basis for distinguishing between theft from person and robbery. The paragraph does rightly point out that some courts look to whether a victim notices the taking IN TIME TO RESIST the taking, such that force is used to overcome that resistance. In other words, the courts aren't pondering that people aren't noticing the purse being taken at all, just that by the time they notice and are able to react, the purse is taken. IMHO (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In English law, touching the purse would be a battery and therefore the taking of it would be a robbery (at least that's where the authorities stood when I last looked at it). Francis Davey (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally I've just replied to a post of yours on uk.legal, but that's irrelevant. I remember this debate when I practised in Liverpool in the 1970s. There were gangs of pickpockets and purse-snatchers who targeted bus queues, and apart from the pre-preparatory "suspected person loitering" charges, it became a real problem whether to charge theft or robbery. As I understand it, battery can only be to a person, not a purse, but you may have better authority than I. It was always regarded as a classic "fact & degree" issue, and if in doubt, the County Prosecutor (pre-CPS) charged robbery, which left the jury open to convict of simple theft. A comprehensive review of the authorities would be useful here, but my feeling is that it's always up to the jury. --Rodhullandemu 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to dig out my notes, there was a later decision that meant that clothing and apparel were all part of the person (so touching them was battery) and you can see how that might go. Francis Davey (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I follow that exactly; I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Court of Appeal or Divisional Court took a wider point of view, according to the mischief rule. Some cases would be useful here but my practical experience with such cases is long ago, and since I don't currently teach such courses, I'm a little rusty. --Rodhullandemu 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know English law so well (more of a historic perspective in its relation to USA jurisdictions), but something seems off to me. If just touching the purse is a battery and makes the situation a robbery, then the same should be true with touching a wallet. Again, I don't know the English system that well, but I doubt pickpockets would be treated as robbers, at least just for picking the pocket. That aside, there is certainly a difference between USA jurisdictions, though where that falls may vary. But specific fact situations aside, Hawaii treats "theft from person" as a 2nd degree theft (C felony), regardless of value of the item taken. Hawaii also has Robbery, the lowest level being Rob 2 (B felony). In this scheme, robbery would require more than just taking an item from the person. IMHO (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've highlighted one of the major differences between UK and US law here, in that US law still distinguishes between felony and misdemeanour, and specifically recognises degrees of offences; the UK does not do that, leaving the sentence on conviction open to widely-drawn limits rather than specifying a sentencing range, and of course the UK does not have different penal statutes between states, and does not distinguish between federal and state crimes. That's one of the major differences I've found dealing with commonly-accepted concepts (theft, burglary, robbery, for example), across jurisdictions. As an aside, these concepts exist in most countries, but this encyclopedia does tend to be biased towards the interests of editors in the English-speaking world, principally, USA, UK & Australia. It would be truly wonderful to address all these concepts in one article, but the detail might have to be devolved to more specific treatments. But in practical common-law terms, robbery = theft + force, and that is probably universal, but the article itself might be a useful starting point for that principle (based from earliest definitions), and lead onwards to more detailed treatments. Criminal damage in English law is one example of a localised treatment of a general topic. --Rodhullandemu 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, putting the issues of degrees, felony v. misdemeanor and whatnot aside, I imagine most common law jurisdictions still work off of the formula you give, robbery = theft + force. The issue that the article should properly address is how various jurisdictions, at least within the English speaking common law states (and hopefully elsewhere eventually) draw the line at force. Even though the U.K. does have separate jurisdictions as such, I would not be surprised if the purse snatching incident is discussed. And while I know you weren't disputing this Rodhullandemu, the fact that it is used as a demonstative makes the point worth including.
Of course, I acknowledge that paragraph still needs clean up, and probably should be moved.
As far as the overarching differences between, and inclusion of within the article, the various jurisdictions, I doubt going discussing the differences in punishment schemes generally would be worth while in this article. It would probably be good to have section starting with robbery within the common law historically (and thus England, possibly Scottish/Irish influences) and then have separate sections on various English speaking/common law states. Further improvement will come with discussing specific non-English speaking/non-common law states, or summaries of regions, and then going back and inserting principles that non-common law systems (civil law) use. An idea anyway. IMHO (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit

[edit]

I think that this edit [1] is wrong, the force must be immediately before or at the time of the theft.James500 (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to partly undo the edit. For the time being I am going to omit the words "intentionally or recklessly in order to commit it" in the original text because I am not sure if they are correct. James500 (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added back the words "It may however constitute another criminal offence, such as assault" either as they are not really relevant to this offence. James500 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this in need of expert attention?

[edit]

The article seems fine to me. Sure, we could add lists of famous robberies, or get into the citation of specific cases, but it seems accurate to me. Why is it flagged for expert attention? Lawdroid (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link to the Danish article

[edit]

The link to the Danish article about robbery links to simple theft. Can someone please replace the current link with this link: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B8veri -- done. --KarlB (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robbery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assault with intent to rob

[edit]

The article stated that an alternative charge for someone whose attempted robbery was foiled is "assault" and stated that this was "under s. 8(2) of the 1968 Act". But that section doesn't actually say that, nor does it define the offence of assault with intent to rob, it only gives the penalty for the latter offence (same as robbery, life imprisonment). Is it a common law offence then? It's listed as such at Common law offence#List of offences under the common law of England. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robbery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Footpad

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article (Footpad) states the etymology of "footpad", defines it as an archaic synonym of thief, then devolves into redundant blabber about robbery and gangs, which also have articles. Thus, this entire article, and any conceivable manifestation of it, is and will be largely a content fork of other articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support over the course of a year. Klbrain (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Clarification for tables

[edit]

The two tales in the section "Robbery statistics" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robbery#Robbery_statistics) could use some clarification. Please add column headers to explain what the data in each column represents. And for the second table, please also explain why the countries are ordered as they are, because I don't see any logic to that sort order. HugoK22 (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the headers. I also agree that the data should be ordered differently. Masatami (let's talk!) 23:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robbery&oldid=1257454920"