Tea party is trying to stop it. Occupiers want to push us into full on Greece.
Cloward piven being done by Obama. Wake up people. P
http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bank-robbery/18 USCS § 2113 says that whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another, or obtains or attempts to obtain by extortion any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association; or whoever enters or attempts to enter any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, or any building used in whole or in part as a bank, credit union, or as a savings and loan association, with intent to commit in such bank, credit union, or in such savings and loan association, or building, or part thereof, so used, any felony affecting such bank or such savings and loan association and in violation of any statute of the United States, or any larceny shall be fined or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. Likewise, whoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money or any other thing of value exceeding $ 1,000 belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, shall be punished with fine and imprisonment. Whoever receives possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of, any property or money or other thing of value which has been taken or stolen from a bank, credit union, or savings and loan association knowing the same to be property which has been stolen shall be subject to the punishment.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/larceny/Larceny is a form of theft involving taking the goods or money or another without permission.
Oh come one, I posted a ton of notes which show they did not use the threat of violence, which you claimed cannot exist.
I then show a bank robbery where no weapons were used and no violence occurred...and you STILL claim it is not true.
Are you mentally challenged or something?
The taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation.
..................
OWS *as a movement* doesn't threaten violence at all. It can easily be argued that what organized violence that does occur originates from agent provocateurs and police in riot gear.
It's not like OWS participants are brandishing firearms and raving about second amendment solutions, either. Nobody would do that, would they?
Yes! You have uncovered the conspiracy! The Koch brothers, Fox news and Sarah Palin have planted all the videos of #Occupy protesters engaged in violence and hired all the "agent provocateurs" to make the #Occupy protesters look bad, it's all a vast right wing conspiracy. ...............Here's your tinfoil hat.
I didn't say that. False attribution is a sign of desperation.
Heh. Let's try this again. Words have definitions, and we don't get to make up our own definitions to suit our arguments. I offered up a legal definition of robbery from a reputable source-
It seems obvious that even in your Milwaukee incident, intimidation, the threat of violence, was used by the perps. Otherwise, they couldn't be defined as "robbers". Bank employees won't give it up unless they feel threatened, intimidated, and they're trained, as well.
That's why what you actually said is in the quote box, What I said was just making fun of your ridiculous comment.
As best I can be brother. It is coming. History is repeating itself.That's bull. Republicans used to be law and order party - look how they prosecuted thousands of crooks in S&L. Today not a peep with much much larger frauds. Banking will not be fixed until we stop the looting and start prosecuting. Without banking and trusted commerce economy can't recover.
Republicans used to be fiscally responsible now vote for every extension of the debt limit and can't even deal with a 120 billion dollar cut to a 1.7 trillion dollar deficient.
History books are full of what USA is going through and it never ends well. You know it too, You're prepared arnt you?
Nice stretch into false attribution, again. Those kind of bank robberies always involve the explicit threat of violence, with a bomb or a gun or whatever.
There is no explicit threat of violence wrt OWS.
Sure there is. You can walk in, hand in a note saying you are robbing the bank and to give you all the money in the drawer.
No violence at all in such an action, quite peaceful.
I used the ACTUAL LAW (18 USCS § 2113) to show your definition to be wrong. Still not good enough to show you are wrong, eh?
You are now saying YOU are right and the ACTUAL LAW is wrong. You are quickly entering Forum Jester mode...and AUSM will not be pleased if you start competing with him for it.
Just admit you were wrong. You can easily say you did not know the actual law allowed for non-violent robbery. I am sure many people do not know a great many things about many laws.
To continue saying the actual law is wrong about what is required to perform the act made illegal by the law is foolish.
In my mind when you break the law you have stepped over the boundary between peaceful and violent. A lawbreaker expects that any attempt to arrest them has to involve force of one type or another and since it was done by their own volition the responsibility belongs to the law breaker.
OK..lets play your definition game:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bank-robbery/
http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/larceny/
There are a LOT of OR statements in that list. I highlighted some which do NOT require violence.
Again, you are wrong. Just admit it and move on. Stop making yourself look more and more foolish.
Thanks for the response, I appreciate your reasoning even if I don quite agree
Im trying to apply your reasoning to instances such were there are nonviolent lawbreaker
J walkers
Parking tickets
In those instances, using your reasoning, does that give the ticketing officer the right to kick my ass?
No, it sure doesn't, in fact an officer never has the right to "kick your ass". However if an officer says to a jaywalker or a parking violator please step over here to the curb so I can ticket you/arrest you and the violator refuses to comply and locks arms with a passenger or a fellow jaywalker and continues to refuse the officer. After a few more warnings and requests to comply, i bet you can expect some type of force to be used by the officer (by then probably several officers) to secure an arrest. We all run into small conflicts or situations with the police, pulled over for a traffic ticket, warned back from a crime scene, waved over into a DUI traffic check, crowd controls at parades etc. In every situation you know that if an officer gives you straight up instructions "pull your car over, don't pass the police tape, step out of the street" That if you choose to disobey the officer, and then continue to disobey the officer, you will be forcibly restrained and arrested. Frankly i'm pretty amazed that the #Occupy protesters feel that they are above being treated like anyone else engaged in a crime.
While the rest of your post is fine, the bolded statement is problematic. Generally protesters who engage in this sort of behavior are not saying they are above the law. They are, in fact, willfully violating it to make a point. It's called civil disobedience.
Then they should not act surprised when they get the results they should have expected and realistically deserve.
Who's acting surprised? They are only complaining when they feel the force used was excessive, i.e. more than necessary, like the pepper spray incident at UCD. They may not be correct about that, but that is often the basis of the complaint.
The statute itself differentiates robbery & larceny, defining the penalties for both.
This. This is the really the crux of the issue. Everyone concedes that the police had the right to use force to remove the protesters. The question is does using pepper spray in that manner constitute excessive force(in either a legal or moral sense).
Some people here on both sides are just trolling. My 90 grandfather thought the pepper spray was excessive and in the next sentence he called OWS lazy bastards who don't want to work and should take a bath. It's not a fucking team sport. If you admit the other side as a legitimate point nothing bad happens.
From a moral standpoint, they should not have done it. Using pepper spray on them would end up being twisted and perverted by their supporters into a PR win. There were other ways, which included simply starving them out.
You're not reading the statute you quoted correctly. He's right that a robbery requires force or threat of force. The "threat" can be implicit. "Give me your money" may well suffice, depending on context.
The statute you cited doesn't show that "robbery" doesn't require force or threat. It shows that several different activities are subject to a similar penalty under federal law. Apparently, under federal law, entering a bank with intent to commit any felony whatsoever is penalized the same as a "robbery" is. If all of the possible activities described are "robberies," then entering a bank with the intent to commit a sexual assault is a "robb
ery."
http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bank-robbery/18 USCS § 2113 makes Bank robbery and the crimes done incidental to the robbery a Federal Crime and offense.
That isn't a moral standpoint, it is a practical one. Dig deeper to find your morals.