Mixing
Why shouldn't a bank robbery without threats be legal?
up vote
33
down vote
favorite
So say a bank robber walks into a bank and hands the teller a note saying simply "please give me $1,000" (or maybe even just verbally saying "I need $1,000 please") and if the teller accepts, which they probably would because they're supposed to comply with the robber, he takes the the money, otherwise if they refuse, he leaves.
How is this different than say people asking for charity donations in the street? He just politely requested money without making any threats.
theft
edited yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
asked yesterday
Caspar Valentine
174123
New contributor
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 13 more comments
up vote
33
down vote
favorite
So say a bank robber walks into a bank and hands the teller a note saying simply "please give me $1,000" (or maybe even just verbally saying "I need $1,000 please") and if the teller accepts, which they probably would because they're supposed to comply with the robber, he takes the the money, otherwise if they refuse, he leaves.
How is this different than say people asking for charity donations in the street? He just politely requested money without making any threats.
theft
edited yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
asked yesterday
Caspar Valentine
174123
New contributor
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
22
Who said that is not legal? Robbery without threats is no robbery. By definition, robbery includes violence, intimidation or the threat of force. The teller doesn't need to comply because a person saying "I need $1,000 please" is not a robber unless they threaten.
– Greendrake
yesterday
28
The teller thought it was a threat, or wouldn't have given you the money.
– gnasher729
yesterday
10
@gnasher729 I guess tellers need some objective reason to think that they're being threatened vs asked. Otherwise any silly beggar popped in a bank would be charged with robbery. At the end of the day, "I need $1,000 please" could mean an account holder wishing to withdraw cash.
– Greendrake
yesterday
16
@Greendrake: if you tell the cashier to give you $1,000 and the cashier does not feel threatened, he will simply say "no".
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
8
@MartinArgerami Actually rather than say no the cashier will probably just ask for your chip card or whatever means of identification the bank otherwise use for their customers.
– kasperd
yesterday
|
show 13 more comments
up vote
33
down vote
favorite
up vote
33
down vote
favorite
So say a bank robber walks into a bank and hands the teller a note saying simply "please give me $1,000" (or maybe even just verbally saying "I need $1,000 please") and if the teller accepts, which they probably would because they're supposed to comply with the robber, he takes the the money, otherwise if they refuse, he leaves.
How is this different than say people asking for charity donations in the street? He just politely requested money without making any threats.
theft
edited yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
asked yesterday
Caspar Valentine
174123
New contributor
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
So say a bank robber walks into a bank and hands the teller a note saying simply "please give me $1,000" (or maybe even just verbally saying "I need $1,000 please") and if the teller accepts, which they probably would because they're supposed to comply with the robber, he takes the the money, otherwise if they refuse, he leaves.
How is this different than say people asking for charity donations in the street? He just politely requested money without making any threats.
theft
theft
edited yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
asked yesterday
Caspar Valentine
174123
New contributor
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
asked yesterday
Caspar Valentine
174123
New contributor
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
edited yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
edited yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
10.1k11539
asked yesterday
Caspar Valentine
174123
New contributor
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Caspar Valentine
174123
asked yesterday
Caspar Valentine
174123
174123
New contributor
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
22
Who said that is not legal? Robbery without threats is no robbery. By definition, robbery includes violence, intimidation or the threat of force. The teller doesn't need to comply because a person saying "I need $1,000 please" is not a robber unless they threaten.
– Greendrake
yesterday
28
The teller thought it was a threat, or wouldn't have given you the money.
– gnasher729
yesterday
10
@gnasher729 I guess tellers need some objective reason to think that they're being threatened vs asked. Otherwise any silly beggar popped in a bank would be charged with robbery. At the end of the day, "I need $1,000 please" could mean an account holder wishing to withdraw cash.
– Greendrake
yesterday
16
@Greendrake: if you tell the cashier to give you $1,000 and the cashier does not feel threatened, he will simply say "no".
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
8
@MartinArgerami Actually rather than say no the cashier will probably just ask for your chip card or whatever means of identification the bank otherwise use for their customers.
– kasperd
yesterday
|
show 13 more comments
22
Who said that is not legal? Robbery without threats is no robbery. By definition, robbery includes violence, intimidation or the threat of force. The teller doesn't need to comply because a person saying "I need $1,000 please" is not a robber unless they threaten.
– Greendrake
yesterday
28
The teller thought it was a threat, or wouldn't have given you the money.
– gnasher729
yesterday
10
@gnasher729 I guess tellers need some objective reason to think that they're being threatened vs asked. Otherwise any silly beggar popped in a bank would be charged with robbery. At the end of the day, "I need $1,000 please" could mean an account holder wishing to withdraw cash.
– Greendrake
yesterday
16
@Greendrake: if you tell the cashier to give you $1,000 and the cashier does not feel threatened, he will simply say "no".
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
8
@MartinArgerami Actually rather than say no the cashier will probably just ask for your chip card or whatever means of identification the bank otherwise use for their customers.
– kasperd
yesterday
22
22
Who said that is not legal? Robbery without threats is no robbery. By definition, robbery includes violence, intimidation or the threat of force. The teller doesn't need to comply because a person saying "I need $1,000 please" is not a robber unless they threaten.
– Greendrake
yesterday
Who said that is not legal? Robbery without threats is no robbery. By definition, robbery includes violence, intimidation or the threat of force. The teller doesn't need to comply because a person saying "I need $1,000 please" is not a robber unless they threaten.
– Greendrake
yesterday
28
28
The teller thought it was a threat, or wouldn't have given you the money.
– gnasher729
yesterday
The teller thought it was a threat, or wouldn't have given you the money.
– gnasher729
yesterday
10
10
@gnasher729 I guess tellers need some objective reason to think that they're being threatened vs asked. Otherwise any silly beggar popped in a bank would be charged with robbery. At the end of the day, "I need $1,000 please" could mean an account holder wishing to withdraw cash.
– Greendrake
yesterday
@gnasher729 I guess tellers need some objective reason to think that they're being threatened vs asked. Otherwise any silly beggar popped in a bank would be charged with robbery. At the end of the day, "I need $1,000 please" could mean an account holder wishing to withdraw cash.
– Greendrake
yesterday
16
16
@Greendrake: if you tell the cashier to give you $1,000 and the cashier does not feel threatened, he will simply say "no".
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
@Greendrake: if you tell the cashier to give you $1,000 and the cashier does not feel threatened, he will simply say "no".
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
8
8
@MartinArgerami Actually rather than say no the cashier will probably just ask for your chip card or whatever means of identification the bank otherwise use for their customers.
– kasperd
yesterday
@MartinArgerami Actually rather than say no the cashier will probably just ask for your chip card or whatever means of identification the bank otherwise use for their customers.
– kasperd
yesterday
|
show 13 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
76
down vote
As a concrete example, consider Missouri v. Coleman, where Coleman handed a teller a plastic bag and said "I need you to do me a favor. Put the money in this bag", and later as the manager approached, said "Ma'am, stop where you are and don't move any farther". Coleman was convicted of second degree robbery: but the appeals court found that he had not acted foribly, so his conviction was overturned. Instead, the court entered a conviction for the lesser offense of stealing which is when one
Appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to
deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by
means of deceit or coercion
The act may also be termed "theft", as in Washington state. The thief is acting deceptively and thereby gaining control over property.
answered yesterday
user6726
53.7k34592
3
I think this answer includes the most important point: A court may rule it not being robbery - but it's still a crime: theft.
– Falco
8 hours ago
6
If my church says I need to tithe 10% of my income or go to hell, could I argue that it was stealing by means of deceit - requiring them to prove that their claims were truthful?
– Rob P.
3 hours ago
2
@RobP. IRS guidelines say that documents (for tax purposes etc) acknowledging donations to religious groups should say that "goods or services, if any, that the organization provided in return for the contribution consisted entirely of intangible religious benefits" if that's the case. My church does that for my tithes. You could argue that "not going to hell" is an intangible religious benefit, so there's no deception. Ask a new question if you have further questions.
– Thunderforge
1 hour ago
@RobP. First, it would be fraud, not robbery or theft, since they aren't threatening you with immediate violence or taking your stuff without asking, but informing you of a putative state of facts over which they claim to have no control to get you to hand them over voluntarily... Second, It's for the prosecutor to make the case: They must prove that the claim made by the hypothetical churchman was not only not truthful, but was known to be untruthful by the person who made it. If they believe it, it's not fraud.
– Ben
58 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
42
down vote
Generally, the law would not just look at the robber's literal words, but at how a reasonable person would understand them in context. And it will assume that the robber meant them to be understood in that way. Here, a reasonable person would understand such a note to be a threat of violence, so the law will assume the robber meant it as a threat.
Likewise, a mob boss who tells his associates to "take Joe for a ride" will not be able to avoid prosecution by insisting that he only told them to provide him with a pleasant sightseeing tour.
answered yesterday
Nate Eldredge
7,4811732
3
Mitchell and Webb did a sketch with a number of expressions similar to your "take Joe for a ride" example: youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY
– kasperd
yesterday
@kasperd Won't think of "light refreshments" the same way again
– Xen2050
13 hours ago
Or, famously, "wouldn't want anything to happen to it"...
– Peter A. Schneider
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
How is this different than say people asking for charity donations in
the street?
Context is everything.
Obviously, someone asking for charity donations on the street will present themselves as a legal charity, like the Salvation Army, etc. If you meant "charity" in the sense of someone panhandling Panhandling | (Merriam-Webster), most if not all people will take the asking for $1000 as an absurd request and keep walking. It's possible that someone may take offense and the police may deem it an attempt at mugging or stealing, depending on jurisdiction, and see user6726's answer.
But to walk into a bank and ask for $1000, the context is completely different. That's because a bank is where the money is. You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction, either a legal or an attempted illegal transaction. As the (apocryphal) saying goes, Willie Sutton (Wikipedia) robbed banks "Because that's where the money is".
So while it's possible that a polite bank robber trying to not be aggressive may get away with robbery under a lesser charge, anyone in a bank requesting an illegal withdrawal - by any means - is still a bank robber, and 99% of the time, a jury and judge will see that.
answered yesterday
BlueDogRanch
9,23421735
"You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction" - I find busking & begging far more effective in banks and by cash points. Doing these activities in the cash point however is much less effective.
– UKMonkey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You can't have it both ways. Either the person used words that cause the teller to fear that violence will occur if the money isn't given or they didn't. If the former, it's a threat. If the latter, the teller won't give them the money.
If their words caused the teller to give them money because the teller feared violence, and this was the intended result of their words and not totally unexpected, that's the definition of using a threat of force to obtain a thing of value.
The lack of use of force means, of course, that it's not a violent robbery. But if the teller feels threatened, it's a threat. If the teller doesn't, they won't give the person the money.
answered 20 hours ago
David Schwartz
871310
-1. Why speculate of words used if the question gives two specific phrases "please give me $1,000" or "I need $1,000 please".
– Greendrake
17 hours ago
1
@Greendrake Because it is a complex, fact-specific question whether those words would be a threat in the circumstances or not. But what is undeniable is that either they are or they aren't, and my answer covers both cases.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
@Greendrake For example, suppose someone walks up to you on the street and says, "Please give me your wallet", and you do. Whether or not they committed theft doesn't depend on a complex analysis of the phrase "Please give me your wallet" but an analysis of the facts and circumstances under which they said it and whether that would make someone feel threatened. Was it dark? Was it late? Were they armed? Did they block your path? What tone of voice did they use? And so on. The words alone aren't what gets analyzed.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
@Greendrake Whatever. Either it is a threat or it isn't. If it's a threat, then the robbery was accomplished by means of a threat. If it isn't a threat, then the person wouldn't feel threatened and wouldn't turn over money. You can't have it both ways -- if you pick words that cause the person to turn over the money because he fears what the robber might do, then you've taken funds by threat. If you don't, then you won't get any money. It's really not complicated.
– David Schwartz
13 hours ago
1
That seems pretty clearly wrong. I don't know of any jurisdiction where guilt turns simply on the words you choose. If you have no intent to cause fear, but happen to be dealing with someone especially fearful, that doesn't by itself expose you to liability. If you try to cause fear but choose words that just happen to fail, you're still facing liability for an attempted robbery.
– bdb484
13 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Robbery is theft carried out through force or the threat of force. The most important part of your hypothetical is that you're saying the person asks for money without making a threat (and presumably without force).
If that is the case, the person is not a robber and the transaction is not a robbery. It is, like you said, the equivalent of a request for a charitable donation, and it is legal.
answered yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
1
I don't believe this is true. Say I was working in a bank. If someone came into a bank and politely asked to put the money in the bag, I would assume that they are simply trying not to make a scene but will still shoot me dead if I refuse.
– forest
yesterday
1
@forest: your assumption is not enough for a conviction. A court can find "any reasonable person would have taken this as a threat"; but if it doesn't there's no crime.
– Tim Lymington
yesterday
2
@forest There's a difference between saying you need $1,000 (as the OP said) and telling someone to "put the money in the bag," isn't there?
– bdb484
yesterday
5
There seems to be a strange pattern of people disputing the answer because they're imagining facts that are different from what the OP asked about. The question is about merely asking for money, "without threats." If there were elements of fraud or deception, then yes, you'd obviously have to consider those charges. There are no elements of fraud or deception in the hypothetical posed by the question.
– bdb484
22 hours ago
6
I have to completely disagree. I think the fact that the question is purportedly about robbery has infected your thinking. I'd be willing to bet $1,000 that if I walked into a bank and told the teller, "I need $1,000 please," she would just ask me for my account number. That is exactly what happens in banks, all day long, every single day.
– bdb484
16 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
76
down vote
As a concrete example, consider Missouri v. Coleman, where Coleman handed a teller a plastic bag and said "I need you to do me a favor. Put the money in this bag", and later as the manager approached, said "Ma'am, stop where you are and don't move any farther". Coleman was convicted of second degree robbery: but the appeals court found that he had not acted foribly, so his conviction was overturned. Instead, the court entered a conviction for the lesser offense of stealing which is when one
Appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to
deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by
means of deceit or coercion
The act may also be termed "theft", as in Washington state. The thief is acting deceptively and thereby gaining control over property.
answered yesterday
user6726
53.7k34592
3
I think this answer includes the most important point: A court may rule it not being robbery - but it's still a crime: theft.
– Falco
8 hours ago
6
If my church says I need to tithe 10% of my income or go to hell, could I argue that it was stealing by means of deceit - requiring them to prove that their claims were truthful?
– Rob P.
3 hours ago
2
@RobP. IRS guidelines say that documents (for tax purposes etc) acknowledging donations to religious groups should say that "goods or services, if any, that the organization provided in return for the contribution consisted entirely of intangible religious benefits" if that's the case. My church does that for my tithes. You could argue that "not going to hell" is an intangible religious benefit, so there's no deception. Ask a new question if you have further questions.
– Thunderforge
1 hour ago
@RobP. First, it would be fraud, not robbery or theft, since they aren't threatening you with immediate violence or taking your stuff without asking, but informing you of a putative state of facts over which they claim to have no control to get you to hand them over voluntarily... Second, It's for the prosecutor to make the case: They must prove that the claim made by the hypothetical churchman was not only not truthful, but was known to be untruthful by the person who made it. If they believe it, it's not fraud.
– Ben
58 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
76
down vote
As a concrete example, consider Missouri v. Coleman, where Coleman handed a teller a plastic bag and said "I need you to do me a favor. Put the money in this bag", and later as the manager approached, said "Ma'am, stop where you are and don't move any farther". Coleman was convicted of second degree robbery: but the appeals court found that he had not acted foribly, so his conviction was overturned. Instead, the court entered a conviction for the lesser offense of stealing which is when one
Appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to
deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by
means of deceit or coercion
The act may also be termed "theft", as in Washington state. The thief is acting deceptively and thereby gaining control over property.
answered yesterday
user6726
53.7k34592
3
I think this answer includes the most important point: A court may rule it not being robbery - but it's still a crime: theft.
– Falco
8 hours ago
6
If my church says I need to tithe 10% of my income or go to hell, could I argue that it was stealing by means of deceit - requiring them to prove that their claims were truthful?
– Rob P.
3 hours ago
2
@RobP. IRS guidelines say that documents (for tax purposes etc) acknowledging donations to religious groups should say that "goods or services, if any, that the organization provided in return for the contribution consisted entirely of intangible religious benefits" if that's the case. My church does that for my tithes. You could argue that "not going to hell" is an intangible religious benefit, so there's no deception. Ask a new question if you have further questions.
– Thunderforge
1 hour ago
@RobP. First, it would be fraud, not robbery or theft, since they aren't threatening you with immediate violence or taking your stuff without asking, but informing you of a putative state of facts over which they claim to have no control to get you to hand them over voluntarily... Second, It's for the prosecutor to make the case: They must prove that the claim made by the hypothetical churchman was not only not truthful, but was known to be untruthful by the person who made it. If they believe it, it's not fraud.
– Ben
58 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
76
down vote
up vote
76
down vote
As a concrete example, consider Missouri v. Coleman, where Coleman handed a teller a plastic bag and said "I need you to do me a favor. Put the money in this bag", and later as the manager approached, said "Ma'am, stop where you are and don't move any farther". Coleman was convicted of second degree robbery: but the appeals court found that he had not acted foribly, so his conviction was overturned. Instead, the court entered a conviction for the lesser offense of stealing which is when one
Appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to
deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by
means of deceit or coercion
The act may also be termed "theft", as in Washington state. The thief is acting deceptively and thereby gaining control over property.
answered yesterday
user6726
53.7k34592
As a concrete example, consider Missouri v. Coleman, where Coleman handed a teller a plastic bag and said "I need you to do me a favor. Put the money in this bag", and later as the manager approached, said "Ma'am, stop where you are and don't move any farther". Coleman was convicted of second degree robbery: but the appeals court found that he had not acted foribly, so his conviction was overturned. Instead, the court entered a conviction for the lesser offense of stealing which is when one
Appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to
deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by
means of deceit or coercion
The act may also be termed "theft", as in Washington state. The thief is acting deceptively and thereby gaining control over property.
answered yesterday
user6726
53.7k34592
answered yesterday
user6726
53.7k34592
answered yesterday
user6726
53.7k34592
answered yesterday
user6726
53.7k34592
53.7k34592
3
I think this answer includes the most important point: A court may rule it not being robbery - but it's still a crime: theft.
– Falco
8 hours ago
6
If my church says I need to tithe 10% of my income or go to hell, could I argue that it was stealing by means of deceit - requiring them to prove that their claims were truthful?
– Rob P.
3 hours ago
2
@RobP. IRS guidelines say that documents (for tax purposes etc) acknowledging donations to religious groups should say that "goods or services, if any, that the organization provided in return for the contribution consisted entirely of intangible religious benefits" if that's the case. My church does that for my tithes. You could argue that "not going to hell" is an intangible religious benefit, so there's no deception. Ask a new question if you have further questions.
– Thunderforge
1 hour ago
@RobP. First, it would be fraud, not robbery or theft, since they aren't threatening you with immediate violence or taking your stuff without asking, but informing you of a putative state of facts over which they claim to have no control to get you to hand them over voluntarily... Second, It's for the prosecutor to make the case: They must prove that the claim made by the hypothetical churchman was not only not truthful, but was known to be untruthful by the person who made it. If they believe it, it's not fraud.
– Ben
58 mins ago
add a comment |
3
I think this answer includes the most important point: A court may rule it not being robbery - but it's still a crime: theft.
– Falco
8 hours ago
6
If my church says I need to tithe 10% of my income or go to hell, could I argue that it was stealing by means of deceit - requiring them to prove that their claims were truthful?
– Rob P.
3 hours ago
2
@RobP. IRS guidelines say that documents (for tax purposes etc) acknowledging donations to religious groups should say that "goods or services, if any, that the organization provided in return for the contribution consisted entirely of intangible religious benefits" if that's the case. My church does that for my tithes. You could argue that "not going to hell" is an intangible religious benefit, so there's no deception. Ask a new question if you have further questions.
– Thunderforge
1 hour ago
@RobP. First, it would be fraud, not robbery or theft, since they aren't threatening you with immediate violence or taking your stuff without asking, but informing you of a putative state of facts over which they claim to have no control to get you to hand them over voluntarily... Second, It's for the prosecutor to make the case: They must prove that the claim made by the hypothetical churchman was not only not truthful, but was known to be untruthful by the person who made it. If they believe it, it's not fraud.
– Ben
58 mins ago
3
3
I think this answer includes the most important point: A court may rule it not being robbery - but it's still a crime: theft.
– Falco
8 hours ago
I think this answer includes the most important point: A court may rule it not being robbery - but it's still a crime: theft.
– Falco
8 hours ago
6
6
If my church says I need to tithe 10% of my income or go to hell, could I argue that it was stealing by means of deceit - requiring them to prove that their claims were truthful?
– Rob P.
3 hours ago
If my church says I need to tithe 10% of my income or go to hell, could I argue that it was stealing by means of deceit - requiring them to prove that their claims were truthful?
– Rob P.
3 hours ago
2
2
@RobP. IRS guidelines say that documents (for tax purposes etc) acknowledging donations to religious groups should say that "goods or services, if any, that the organization provided in return for the contribution consisted entirely of intangible religious benefits" if that's the case. My church does that for my tithes. You could argue that "not going to hell" is an intangible religious benefit, so there's no deception. Ask a new question if you have further questions.
– Thunderforge
1 hour ago
@RobP. IRS guidelines say that documents (for tax purposes etc) acknowledging donations to religious groups should say that "goods or services, if any, that the organization provided in return for the contribution consisted entirely of intangible religious benefits" if that's the case. My church does that for my tithes. You could argue that "not going to hell" is an intangible religious benefit, so there's no deception. Ask a new question if you have further questions.
– Thunderforge
1 hour ago
@RobP. First, it would be fraud, not robbery or theft, since they aren't threatening you with immediate violence or taking your stuff without asking, but informing you of a putative state of facts over which they claim to have no control to get you to hand them over voluntarily... Second, It's for the prosecutor to make the case: They must prove that the claim made by the hypothetical churchman was not only not truthful, but was known to be untruthful by the person who made it. If they believe it, it's not fraud.
– Ben
58 mins ago
@RobP. First, it would be fraud, not robbery or theft, since they aren't threatening you with immediate violence or taking your stuff without asking, but informing you of a putative state of facts over which they claim to have no control to get you to hand them over voluntarily... Second, It's for the prosecutor to make the case: They must prove that the claim made by the hypothetical churchman was not only not truthful, but was known to be untruthful by the person who made it. If they believe it, it's not fraud.
– Ben
58 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
42
down vote
Generally, the law would not just look at the robber's literal words, but at how a reasonable person would understand them in context. And it will assume that the robber meant them to be understood in that way. Here, a reasonable person would understand such a note to be a threat of violence, so the law will assume the robber meant it as a threat.
Likewise, a mob boss who tells his associates to "take Joe for a ride" will not be able to avoid prosecution by insisting that he only told them to provide him with a pleasant sightseeing tour.
answered yesterday
Nate Eldredge
7,4811732
3
Mitchell and Webb did a sketch with a number of expressions similar to your "take Joe for a ride" example: youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY
– kasperd
yesterday
@kasperd Won't think of "light refreshments" the same way again
– Xen2050
13 hours ago
Or, famously, "wouldn't want anything to happen to it"...
– Peter A. Schneider
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
42
down vote
Generally, the law would not just look at the robber's literal words, but at how a reasonable person would understand them in context. And it will assume that the robber meant them to be understood in that way. Here, a reasonable person would understand such a note to be a threat of violence, so the law will assume the robber meant it as a threat.
Likewise, a mob boss who tells his associates to "take Joe for a ride" will not be able to avoid prosecution by insisting that he only told them to provide him with a pleasant sightseeing tour.
answered yesterday
Nate Eldredge
7,4811732
3
Mitchell and Webb did a sketch with a number of expressions similar to your "take Joe for a ride" example: youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY
– kasperd
yesterday
@kasperd Won't think of "light refreshments" the same way again
– Xen2050
13 hours ago
Or, famously, "wouldn't want anything to happen to it"...
– Peter A. Schneider
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
42
down vote
up vote
42
down vote
Generally, the law would not just look at the robber's literal words, but at how a reasonable person would understand them in context. And it will assume that the robber meant them to be understood in that way. Here, a reasonable person would understand such a note to be a threat of violence, so the law will assume the robber meant it as a threat.
Likewise, a mob boss who tells his associates to "take Joe for a ride" will not be able to avoid prosecution by insisting that he only told them to provide him with a pleasant sightseeing tour.
answered yesterday
Nate Eldredge
7,4811732
Generally, the law would not just look at the robber's literal words, but at how a reasonable person would understand them in context. And it will assume that the robber meant them to be understood in that way. Here, a reasonable person would understand such a note to be a threat of violence, so the law will assume the robber meant it as a threat.
Likewise, a mob boss who tells his associates to "take Joe for a ride" will not be able to avoid prosecution by insisting that he only told them to provide him with a pleasant sightseeing tour.
answered yesterday
Nate Eldredge
7,4811732
answered yesterday
Nate Eldredge
7,4811732
answered yesterday
Nate Eldredge
7,4811732
answered yesterday
Nate Eldredge
7,4811732
7,4811732
3
Mitchell and Webb did a sketch with a number of expressions similar to your "take Joe for a ride" example: youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY
– kasperd
yesterday
@kasperd Won't think of "light refreshments" the same way again
– Xen2050
13 hours ago
Or, famously, "wouldn't want anything to happen to it"...
– Peter A. Schneider
7 hours ago
add a comment |
3
Mitchell and Webb did a sketch with a number of expressions similar to your "take Joe for a ride" example: youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY
– kasperd
yesterday
@kasperd Won't think of "light refreshments" the same way again
– Xen2050
13 hours ago
Or, famously, "wouldn't want anything to happen to it"...
– Peter A. Schneider
7 hours ago
3
3
Mitchell and Webb did a sketch with a number of expressions similar to your "take Joe for a ride" example: youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY
– kasperd
yesterday
Mitchell and Webb did a sketch with a number of expressions similar to your "take Joe for a ride" example: youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY
– kasperd
yesterday
@kasperd Won't think of "light refreshments" the same way again
– Xen2050
13 hours ago
@kasperd Won't think of "light refreshments" the same way again
– Xen2050
13 hours ago
Or, famously, "wouldn't want anything to happen to it"...
– Peter A. Schneider
7 hours ago
Or, famously, "wouldn't want anything to happen to it"...
– Peter A. Schneider
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
How is this different than say people asking for charity donations in
the street?
Context is everything.
Obviously, someone asking for charity donations on the street will present themselves as a legal charity, like the Salvation Army, etc. If you meant "charity" in the sense of someone panhandling Panhandling | (Merriam-Webster), most if not all people will take the asking for $1000 as an absurd request and keep walking. It's possible that someone may take offense and the police may deem it an attempt at mugging or stealing, depending on jurisdiction, and see user6726's answer.
But to walk into a bank and ask for $1000, the context is completely different. That's because a bank is where the money is. You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction, either a legal or an attempted illegal transaction. As the (apocryphal) saying goes, Willie Sutton (Wikipedia) robbed banks "Because that's where the money is".
So while it's possible that a polite bank robber trying to not be aggressive may get away with robbery under a lesser charge, anyone in a bank requesting an illegal withdrawal - by any means - is still a bank robber, and 99% of the time, a jury and judge will see that.
answered yesterday
BlueDogRanch
9,23421735
"You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction" - I find busking & begging far more effective in banks and by cash points. Doing these activities in the cash point however is much less effective.
– UKMonkey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
How is this different than say people asking for charity donations in
the street?
Context is everything.
Obviously, someone asking for charity donations on the street will present themselves as a legal charity, like the Salvation Army, etc. If you meant "charity" in the sense of someone panhandling Panhandling | (Merriam-Webster), most if not all people will take the asking for $1000 as an absurd request and keep walking. It's possible that someone may take offense and the police may deem it an attempt at mugging or stealing, depending on jurisdiction, and see user6726's answer.
But to walk into a bank and ask for $1000, the context is completely different. That's because a bank is where the money is. You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction, either a legal or an attempted illegal transaction. As the (apocryphal) saying goes, Willie Sutton (Wikipedia) robbed banks "Because that's where the money is".
So while it's possible that a polite bank robber trying to not be aggressive may get away with robbery under a lesser charge, anyone in a bank requesting an illegal withdrawal - by any means - is still a bank robber, and 99% of the time, a jury and judge will see that.
answered yesterday
BlueDogRanch
9,23421735
"You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction" - I find busking & begging far more effective in banks and by cash points. Doing these activities in the cash point however is much less effective.
– UKMonkey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
How is this different than say people asking for charity donations in
the street?
Context is everything.
Obviously, someone asking for charity donations on the street will present themselves as a legal charity, like the Salvation Army, etc. If you meant "charity" in the sense of someone panhandling Panhandling | (Merriam-Webster), most if not all people will take the asking for $1000 as an absurd request and keep walking. It's possible that someone may take offense and the police may deem it an attempt at mugging or stealing, depending on jurisdiction, and see user6726's answer.
But to walk into a bank and ask for $1000, the context is completely different. That's because a bank is where the money is. You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction, either a legal or an attempted illegal transaction. As the (apocryphal) saying goes, Willie Sutton (Wikipedia) robbed banks "Because that's where the money is".
So while it's possible that a polite bank robber trying to not be aggressive may get away with robbery under a lesser charge, anyone in a bank requesting an illegal withdrawal - by any means - is still a bank robber, and 99% of the time, a jury and judge will see that.
answered yesterday
BlueDogRanch
9,23421735
How is this different than say people asking for charity donations in
the street?
Context is everything.
Obviously, someone asking for charity donations on the street will present themselves as a legal charity, like the Salvation Army, etc. If you meant "charity" in the sense of someone panhandling Panhandling | (Merriam-Webster), most if not all people will take the asking for $1000 as an absurd request and keep walking. It's possible that someone may take offense and the police may deem it an attempt at mugging or stealing, depending on jurisdiction, and see user6726's answer.
But to walk into a bank and ask for $1000, the context is completely different. That's because a bank is where the money is. You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction, either a legal or an attempted illegal transaction. As the (apocryphal) saying goes, Willie Sutton (Wikipedia) robbed banks "Because that's where the money is".
So while it's possible that a polite bank robber trying to not be aggressive may get away with robbery under a lesser charge, anyone in a bank requesting an illegal withdrawal - by any means - is still a bank robber, and 99% of the time, a jury and judge will see that.
answered yesterday
BlueDogRanch
9,23421735
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
BlueDogRanch
9,23421735
answered yesterday
BlueDogRanch
9,23421735
answered yesterday
BlueDogRanch
9,23421735
9,23421735
"You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction" - I find busking & begging far more effective in banks and by cash points. Doing these activities in the cash point however is much less effective.
– UKMonkey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
"You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction" - I find busking & begging far more effective in banks and by cash points. Doing these activities in the cash point however is much less effective.
– UKMonkey
2 hours ago
"You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction" - I find busking & begging far more effective in banks and by cash points. Doing these activities in the cash point however is much less effective.
– UKMonkey
2 hours ago
"You don't usually walk into a bank for anything other than a financial transaction" - I find busking & begging far more effective in banks and by cash points. Doing these activities in the cash point however is much less effective.
– UKMonkey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You can't have it both ways. Either the person used words that cause the teller to fear that violence will occur if the money isn't given or they didn't. If the former, it's a threat. If the latter, the teller won't give them the money.
If their words caused the teller to give them money because the teller feared violence, and this was the intended result of their words and not totally unexpected, that's the definition of using a threat of force to obtain a thing of value.
The lack of use of force means, of course, that it's not a violent robbery. But if the teller feels threatened, it's a threat. If the teller doesn't, they won't give the person the money.
answered 20 hours ago
David Schwartz
871310
-1. Why speculate of words used if the question gives two specific phrases "please give me $1,000" or "I need $1,000 please".
– Greendrake
17 hours ago
1
@Greendrake Because it is a complex, fact-specific question whether those words would be a threat in the circumstances or not. But what is undeniable is that either they are or they aren't, and my answer covers both cases.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
@Greendrake For example, suppose someone walks up to you on the street and says, "Please give me your wallet", and you do. Whether or not they committed theft doesn't depend on a complex analysis of the phrase "Please give me your wallet" but an analysis of the facts and circumstances under which they said it and whether that would make someone feel threatened. Was it dark? Was it late? Were they armed? Did they block your path? What tone of voice did they use? And so on. The words alone aren't what gets analyzed.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
@Greendrake Whatever. Either it is a threat or it isn't. If it's a threat, then the robbery was accomplished by means of a threat. If it isn't a threat, then the person wouldn't feel threatened and wouldn't turn over money. You can't have it both ways -- if you pick words that cause the person to turn over the money because he fears what the robber might do, then you've taken funds by threat. If you don't, then you won't get any money. It's really not complicated.
– David Schwartz
13 hours ago
1
That seems pretty clearly wrong. I don't know of any jurisdiction where guilt turns simply on the words you choose. If you have no intent to cause fear, but happen to be dealing with someone especially fearful, that doesn't by itself expose you to liability. If you try to cause fear but choose words that just happen to fail, you're still facing liability for an attempted robbery.
– bdb484
13 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
You can't have it both ways. Either the person used words that cause the teller to fear that violence will occur if the money isn't given or they didn't. If the former, it's a threat. If the latter, the teller won't give them the money.
If their words caused the teller to give them money because the teller feared violence, and this was the intended result of their words and not totally unexpected, that's the definition of using a threat of force to obtain a thing of value.
The lack of use of force means, of course, that it's not a violent robbery. But if the teller feels threatened, it's a threat. If the teller doesn't, they won't give the person the money.
answered 20 hours ago
David Schwartz
871310
-1. Why speculate of words used if the question gives two specific phrases "please give me $1,000" or "I need $1,000 please".
– Greendrake
17 hours ago
1
@Greendrake Because it is a complex, fact-specific question whether those words would be a threat in the circumstances or not. But what is undeniable is that either they are or they aren't, and my answer covers both cases.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
@Greendrake For example, suppose someone walks up to you on the street and says, "Please give me your wallet", and you do. Whether or not they committed theft doesn't depend on a complex analysis of the phrase "Please give me your wallet" but an analysis of the facts and circumstances under which they said it and whether that would make someone feel threatened. Was it dark? Was it late? Were they armed? Did they block your path? What tone of voice did they use? And so on. The words alone aren't what gets analyzed.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
@Greendrake Whatever. Either it is a threat or it isn't. If it's a threat, then the robbery was accomplished by means of a threat. If it isn't a threat, then the person wouldn't feel threatened and wouldn't turn over money. You can't have it both ways -- if you pick words that cause the person to turn over the money because he fears what the robber might do, then you've taken funds by threat. If you don't, then you won't get any money. It's really not complicated.
– David Schwartz
13 hours ago
1
That seems pretty clearly wrong. I don't know of any jurisdiction where guilt turns simply on the words you choose. If you have no intent to cause fear, but happen to be dealing with someone especially fearful, that doesn't by itself expose you to liability. If you try to cause fear but choose words that just happen to fail, you're still facing liability for an attempted robbery.
– bdb484
13 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You can't have it both ways. Either the person used words that cause the teller to fear that violence will occur if the money isn't given or they didn't. If the former, it's a threat. If the latter, the teller won't give them the money.
If their words caused the teller to give them money because the teller feared violence, and this was the intended result of their words and not totally unexpected, that's the definition of using a threat of force to obtain a thing of value.
The lack of use of force means, of course, that it's not a violent robbery. But if the teller feels threatened, it's a threat. If the teller doesn't, they won't give the person the money.
answered 20 hours ago
David Schwartz
871310
You can't have it both ways. Either the person used words that cause the teller to fear that violence will occur if the money isn't given or they didn't. If the former, it's a threat. If the latter, the teller won't give them the money.
If their words caused the teller to give them money because the teller feared violence, and this was the intended result of their words and not totally unexpected, that's the definition of using a threat of force to obtain a thing of value.
The lack of use of force means, of course, that it's not a violent robbery. But if the teller feels threatened, it's a threat. If the teller doesn't, they won't give the person the money.
answered 20 hours ago
David Schwartz
871310
answered 20 hours ago
David Schwartz
871310
answered 20 hours ago
David Schwartz
871310
answered 20 hours ago
David Schwartz
871310
871310
-1. Why speculate of words used if the question gives two specific phrases "please give me $1,000" or "I need $1,000 please".
– Greendrake
17 hours ago
1
@Greendrake Because it is a complex, fact-specific question whether those words would be a threat in the circumstances or not. But what is undeniable is that either they are or they aren't, and my answer covers both cases.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
@Greendrake For example, suppose someone walks up to you on the street and says, "Please give me your wallet", and you do. Whether or not they committed theft doesn't depend on a complex analysis of the phrase "Please give me your wallet" but an analysis of the facts and circumstances under which they said it and whether that would make someone feel threatened. Was it dark? Was it late? Were they armed? Did they block your path? What tone of voice did they use? And so on. The words alone aren't what gets analyzed.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
@Greendrake Whatever. Either it is a threat or it isn't. If it's a threat, then the robbery was accomplished by means of a threat. If it isn't a threat, then the person wouldn't feel threatened and wouldn't turn over money. You can't have it both ways -- if you pick words that cause the person to turn over the money because he fears what the robber might do, then you've taken funds by threat. If you don't, then you won't get any money. It's really not complicated.
– David Schwartz
13 hours ago
1
That seems pretty clearly wrong. I don't know of any jurisdiction where guilt turns simply on the words you choose. If you have no intent to cause fear, but happen to be dealing with someone especially fearful, that doesn't by itself expose you to liability. If you try to cause fear but choose words that just happen to fail, you're still facing liability for an attempted robbery.
– bdb484
13 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
-1. Why speculate of words used if the question gives two specific phrases "please give me $1,000" or "I need $1,000 please".
– Greendrake
17 hours ago
1
@Greendrake Because it is a complex, fact-specific question whether those words would be a threat in the circumstances or not. But what is undeniable is that either they are or they aren't, and my answer covers both cases.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
@Greendrake For example, suppose someone walks up to you on the street and says, "Please give me your wallet", and you do. Whether or not they committed theft doesn't depend on a complex analysis of the phrase "Please give me your wallet" but an analysis of the facts and circumstances under which they said it and whether that would make someone feel threatened. Was it dark? Was it late? Were they armed? Did they block your path? What tone of voice did they use? And so on. The words alone aren't what gets analyzed.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
@Greendrake Whatever. Either it is a threat or it isn't. If it's a threat, then the robbery was accomplished by means of a threat. If it isn't a threat, then the person wouldn't feel threatened and wouldn't turn over money. You can't have it both ways -- if you pick words that cause the person to turn over the money because he fears what the robber might do, then you've taken funds by threat. If you don't, then you won't get any money. It's really not complicated.
– David Schwartz
13 hours ago
1
That seems pretty clearly wrong. I don't know of any jurisdiction where guilt turns simply on the words you choose. If you have no intent to cause fear, but happen to be dealing with someone especially fearful, that doesn't by itself expose you to liability. If you try to cause fear but choose words that just happen to fail, you're still facing liability for an attempted robbery.
– bdb484
13 hours ago
-1. Why speculate of words used if the question gives two specific phrases "please give me $1,000" or "I need $1,000 please".
– Greendrake
17 hours ago
-1. Why speculate of words used if the question gives two specific phrases "please give me $1,000" or "I need $1,000 please".
– Greendrake
17 hours ago
1
1
@Greendrake Because it is a complex, fact-specific question whether those words would be a threat in the circumstances or not. But what is undeniable is that either they are or they aren't, and my answer covers both cases.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
@Greendrake Because it is a complex, fact-specific question whether those words would be a threat in the circumstances or not. But what is undeniable is that either they are or they aren't, and my answer covers both cases.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
2
@Greendrake For example, suppose someone walks up to you on the street and says, "Please give me your wallet", and you do. Whether or not they committed theft doesn't depend on a complex analysis of the phrase "Please give me your wallet" but an analysis of the facts and circumstances under which they said it and whether that would make someone feel threatened. Was it dark? Was it late? Were they armed? Did they block your path? What tone of voice did they use? And so on. The words alone aren't what gets analyzed.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
@Greendrake For example, suppose someone walks up to you on the street and says, "Please give me your wallet", and you do. Whether or not they committed theft doesn't depend on a complex analysis of the phrase "Please give me your wallet" but an analysis of the facts and circumstances under which they said it and whether that would make someone feel threatened. Was it dark? Was it late? Were they armed? Did they block your path? What tone of voice did they use? And so on. The words alone aren't what gets analyzed.
– David Schwartz
14 hours ago
2
2
@Greendrake Whatever. Either it is a threat or it isn't. If it's a threat, then the robbery was accomplished by means of a threat. If it isn't a threat, then the person wouldn't feel threatened and wouldn't turn over money. You can't have it both ways -- if you pick words that cause the person to turn over the money because he fears what the robber might do, then you've taken funds by threat. If you don't, then you won't get any money. It's really not complicated.
– David Schwartz
13 hours ago
@Greendrake Whatever. Either it is a threat or it isn't. If it's a threat, then the robbery was accomplished by means of a threat. If it isn't a threat, then the person wouldn't feel threatened and wouldn't turn over money. You can't have it both ways -- if you pick words that cause the person to turn over the money because he fears what the robber might do, then you've taken funds by threat. If you don't, then you won't get any money. It's really not complicated.
– David Schwartz
13 hours ago
1
1
That seems pretty clearly wrong. I don't know of any jurisdiction where guilt turns simply on the words you choose. If you have no intent to cause fear, but happen to be dealing with someone especially fearful, that doesn't by itself expose you to liability. If you try to cause fear but choose words that just happen to fail, you're still facing liability for an attempted robbery.
– bdb484
13 hours ago
That seems pretty clearly wrong. I don't know of any jurisdiction where guilt turns simply on the words you choose. If you have no intent to cause fear, but happen to be dealing with someone especially fearful, that doesn't by itself expose you to liability. If you try to cause fear but choose words that just happen to fail, you're still facing liability for an attempted robbery.
– bdb484
13 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Robbery is theft carried out through force or the threat of force. The most important part of your hypothetical is that you're saying the person asks for money without making a threat (and presumably without force).
If that is the case, the person is not a robber and the transaction is not a robbery. It is, like you said, the equivalent of a request for a charitable donation, and it is legal.
answered yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
1
I don't believe this is true. Say I was working in a bank. If someone came into a bank and politely asked to put the money in the bag, I would assume that they are simply trying not to make a scene but will still shoot me dead if I refuse.
– forest
yesterday
1
@forest: your assumption is not enough for a conviction. A court can find "any reasonable person would have taken this as a threat"; but if it doesn't there's no crime.
– Tim Lymington
yesterday
2
@forest There's a difference between saying you need $1,000 (as the OP said) and telling someone to "put the money in the bag," isn't there?
– bdb484
yesterday
5
There seems to be a strange pattern of people disputing the answer because they're imagining facts that are different from what the OP asked about. The question is about merely asking for money, "without threats." If there were elements of fraud or deception, then yes, you'd obviously have to consider those charges. There are no elements of fraud or deception in the hypothetical posed by the question.
– bdb484
22 hours ago
6
I have to completely disagree. I think the fact that the question is purportedly about robbery has infected your thinking. I'd be willing to bet $1,000 that if I walked into a bank and told the teller, "I need $1,000 please," she would just ask me for my account number. That is exactly what happens in banks, all day long, every single day.
– bdb484
16 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Robbery is theft carried out through force or the threat of force. The most important part of your hypothetical is that you're saying the person asks for money without making a threat (and presumably without force).
If that is the case, the person is not a robber and the transaction is not a robbery. It is, like you said, the equivalent of a request for a charitable donation, and it is legal.
answered yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
1
I don't believe this is true. Say I was working in a bank. If someone came into a bank and politely asked to put the money in the bag, I would assume that they are simply trying not to make a scene but will still shoot me dead if I refuse.
– forest
yesterday
1
@forest: your assumption is not enough for a conviction. A court can find "any reasonable person would have taken this as a threat"; but if it doesn't there's no crime.
– Tim Lymington
yesterday
2
@forest There's a difference between saying you need $1,000 (as the OP said) and telling someone to "put the money in the bag," isn't there?
– bdb484
yesterday
5
There seems to be a strange pattern of people disputing the answer because they're imagining facts that are different from what the OP asked about. The question is about merely asking for money, "without threats." If there were elements of fraud or deception, then yes, you'd obviously have to consider those charges. There are no elements of fraud or deception in the hypothetical posed by the question.
– bdb484
22 hours ago
6
I have to completely disagree. I think the fact that the question is purportedly about robbery has infected your thinking. I'd be willing to bet $1,000 that if I walked into a bank and told the teller, "I need $1,000 please," she would just ask me for my account number. That is exactly what happens in banks, all day long, every single day.
– bdb484
16 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Robbery is theft carried out through force or the threat of force. The most important part of your hypothetical is that you're saying the person asks for money without making a threat (and presumably without force).
If that is the case, the person is not a robber and the transaction is not a robbery. It is, like you said, the equivalent of a request for a charitable donation, and it is legal.
answered yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
Robbery is theft carried out through force or the threat of force. The most important part of your hypothetical is that you're saying the person asks for money without making a threat (and presumably without force).
If that is the case, the person is not a robber and the transaction is not a robbery. It is, like you said, the equivalent of a request for a charitable donation, and it is legal.
answered yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
answered yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
answered yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
answered yesterday
bdb484
10.1k11539
10.1k11539
1
I don't believe this is true. Say I was working in a bank. If someone came into a bank and politely asked to put the money in the bag, I would assume that they are simply trying not to make a scene but will still shoot me dead if I refuse.
– forest
yesterday
1
@forest: your assumption is not enough for a conviction. A court can find "any reasonable person would have taken this as a threat"; but if it doesn't there's no crime.
– Tim Lymington
yesterday
2
@forest There's a difference between saying you need $1,000 (as the OP said) and telling someone to "put the money in the bag," isn't there?
– bdb484
yesterday
5
There seems to be a strange pattern of people disputing the answer because they're imagining facts that are different from what the OP asked about. The question is about merely asking for money, "without threats." If there were elements of fraud or deception, then yes, you'd obviously have to consider those charges. There are no elements of fraud or deception in the hypothetical posed by the question.
– bdb484
22 hours ago
6
I have to completely disagree. I think the fact that the question is purportedly about robbery has infected your thinking. I'd be willing to bet $1,000 that if I walked into a bank and told the teller, "I need $1,000 please," she would just ask me for my account number. That is exactly what happens in banks, all day long, every single day.
– bdb484
16 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
1
I don't believe this is true. Say I was working in a bank. If someone came into a bank and politely asked to put the money in the bag, I would assume that they are simply trying not to make a scene but will still shoot me dead if I refuse.
– forest
yesterday
1
@forest: your assumption is not enough for a conviction. A court can find "any reasonable person would have taken this as a threat"; but if it doesn't there's no crime.
– Tim Lymington
yesterday
2
@forest There's a difference between saying you need $1,000 (as the OP said) and telling someone to "put the money in the bag," isn't there?
– bdb484
yesterday
5
There seems to be a strange pattern of people disputing the answer because they're imagining facts that are different from what the OP asked about. The question is about merely asking for money, "without threats." If there were elements of fraud or deception, then yes, you'd obviously have to consider those charges. There are no elements of fraud or deception in the hypothetical posed by the question.
– bdb484
22 hours ago
6
I have to completely disagree. I think the fact that the question is purportedly about robbery has infected your thinking. I'd be willing to bet $1,000 that if I walked into a bank and told the teller, "I need $1,000 please," she would just ask me for my account number. That is exactly what happens in banks, all day long, every single day.
– bdb484
16 hours ago
1
1
I don't believe this is true. Say I was working in a bank. If someone came into a bank and politely asked to put the money in the bag, I would assume that they are simply trying not to make a scene but will still shoot me dead if I refuse.
– forest
yesterday
I don't believe this is true. Say I was working in a bank. If someone came into a bank and politely asked to put the money in the bag, I would assume that they are simply trying not to make a scene but will still shoot me dead if I refuse.
– forest
yesterday
1
1
@forest: your assumption is not enough for a conviction. A court can find "any reasonable person would have taken this as a threat"; but if it doesn't there's no crime.
– Tim Lymington
yesterday
@forest: your assumption is not enough for a conviction. A court can find "any reasonable person would have taken this as a threat"; but if it doesn't there's no crime.
– Tim Lymington
yesterday
2
2
@forest There's a difference between saying you need $1,000 (as the OP said) and telling someone to "put the money in the bag," isn't there?
– bdb484
yesterday
@forest There's a difference between saying you need $1,000 (as the OP said) and telling someone to "put the money in the bag," isn't there?
– bdb484
yesterday
5
5
There seems to be a strange pattern of people disputing the answer because they're imagining facts that are different from what the OP asked about. The question is about merely asking for money, "without threats." If there were elements of fraud or deception, then yes, you'd obviously have to consider those charges. There are no elements of fraud or deception in the hypothetical posed by the question.
– bdb484
22 hours ago
There seems to be a strange pattern of people disputing the answer because they're imagining facts that are different from what the OP asked about. The question is about merely asking for money, "without threats." If there were elements of fraud or deception, then yes, you'd obviously have to consider those charges. There are no elements of fraud or deception in the hypothetical posed by the question.
– bdb484
22 hours ago
6
6
I have to completely disagree. I think the fact that the question is purportedly about robbery has infected your thinking. I'd be willing to bet $1,000 that if I walked into a bank and told the teller, "I need $1,000 please," she would just ask me for my account number. That is exactly what happens in banks, all day long, every single day.
– bdb484
16 hours ago
I have to completely disagree. I think the fact that the question is purportedly about robbery has infected your thinking. I'd be willing to bet $1,000 that if I walked into a bank and told the teller, "I need $1,000 please," she would just ask me for my account number. That is exactly what happens in banks, all day long, every single day.
– bdb484
16 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Caspar Valentine is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33592%2fwhy-shouldnt-a-bank-robbery-without-threats-be-legal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
22
Who said that is not legal? Robbery without threats is no robbery. By definition, robbery includes violence, intimidation or the threat of force. The teller doesn't need to comply because a person saying "I need $1,000 please" is not a robber unless they threaten.
– Greendrake
yesterday
28
The teller thought it was a threat, or wouldn't have given you the money.
– gnasher729
yesterday
10
@gnasher729 I guess tellers need some objective reason to think that they're being threatened vs asked. Otherwise any silly beggar popped in a bank would be charged with robbery. At the end of the day, "I need $1,000 please" could mean an account holder wishing to withdraw cash.
– Greendrake
yesterday
16
@Greendrake: if you tell the cashier to give you $1,000 and the cashier does not feel threatened, he will simply say "no".
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
8
@MartinArgerami Actually rather than say no the cashier will probably just ask for your chip card or whatever means of identification the bank otherwise use for their customers.
– kasperd
yesterday