Gotta love how the Guardian chose to use a photo of the bloodied Brandon Watts, he stole a Policeman's hat, fled, and was injured when his head hit a concrete sidewalk as he was tackled.
A different take on OWS-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?fb=optOut
Not that I agree with it entirely, but it clarifies the basic struggle underlying OWS.
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 year old 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.
What threat is implicit in "give me money"? I walk by panhandlers every day who say the same thing and I guarentee there is no threat.
The statute I posted is the statute concerning Bank Robbery:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bank-robbery/
It is specific to bank robberies. Its entire purprose is to define what is bank robbery and the penalties for committing the crime of bank robbery. Bank Robbery is not the same as home robbery or grocery store robbery. It is a different statute altogether.
If we were talking about basic robbery, sure, he and you would be correct. But since we have been talking about bank robbery the entire time, neither of you are correct.
If the threat of force was required, the statute covering bank robbery would say it was required. For example, it lists extortion as an example. "I will post these pictures of you having sex with a dog onto the Internet if you do not give me all the money in the till" has no threat of violence in it at all. Lots of extortion and blackmail, though.
It also specifically cites "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--"
Yes I read the statute, several times. I know what it says. You didn't thoroughly read or digest my previous post. This is one statute that defines several different crimes as having the same penalty. You think they are all one "crime" called "bank robbery" because they are all defined in the same statute. You are incorrect. Your statute says that entering a bank with the intent to commit any felony is punishable by up to 20 years in jail. By your reasoning, entering a bank with the intention of committing a sexual assault on a customer in line is a "bank robbery." No it isn't. It just incurs the same penalty as a bank robbery under federal law. To repeat - your statute says entering a bank with the intention to commit *any* felony is subject to up to 20 years incarceration. The statute is titled "bank robbery and/b] incidental crimes." The first paragraph of your statute defines bank robbery. The subsequent paragraphs describe other bank related crimes.
There is no such thing as a "robbery" - bank or otherwise - that does not include force or threat of force. His example of burrowing into a vault may not be a relevant distinction in terms of the penalty you receive under federal law, but it is a separate and distinct crime by definition. No, the fact that both are described in the same statute does not make them the same crime. Each requires proof of different elements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_robbery
And yes, a threat can be implicit in "give me your money." Depends on context. If it's said in a threatening or intimidating tone, it may a robbery. If not, then not. That is what juries decide. No robbery statute I've ever seen says the threat must be explicit. It can be implied by tone, conduct and circumstance.
- wolf
You are factually wrong, ignoring any words that do not support your position.You can believe wikipedia...while ignoring the law. The law very explicitly says:
"The law as it appears in the statute:
§ 2113. Bank robbery and incidental crimes "
YOu can continue to claim this law is not about bank robbery...and that such a crime does not exist is it is defined in federal law. Federal Law does not agree with you, though.
YOu can also say a great many untrue things, and fully believe them. But saying the federal statute is wrong is akin to saying water does not fall from clouds.
I know it is hard, but it is a sign of maturity when you can admit you are wrong. The facts are crystal clear, yet your hubris prevents you from being mature.
You can believe wikipedia...while ignoring the law. The law very explicitly says:
"The law as it appears in the statute:
§ 2113. Bank robbery and incidental crimes "
YOu can continue to claim this law is not about bank robbery...and that such a crime does not exist is it is defined in federal law. Federal Law does not agree with you, though.
You can also say a great many untrue things, and fully believe them. But saying the federal statute is wrong is akin to saying water does not fall from clouds.
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.
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.
Wait, you now want to divide #Occupy protesters by small groups so you can point to the 8 or 10 over there in the corner and say "Those #Occupy protesters never pushed old women, broke an EMT's leg, punched a reporter, broke out windows, defecated on a cop car, used children to blockade a door or kept a man from getting his 2 year old son home? If they are breaking the law, they aren't peaceful protesters. Hence the "peacefully robbing a bank" it can't be done, if you're breaking the law, you cease to become peaceful.
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?
Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.[1] Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery differs from simple theft in its use of violence and intimidation.
Clueless idiot is clueless. What happens in NYC (or anywhere else other then UCDavis) has NO BEARING on the UCDavis protest.
Your BS claim you claim violence in NYC, or Oakland, or some other city HAS NO RELEVANCE to UCDavis.
Unless you have some novel interpretation of the law that you can show?
Show proof or STFU.
More news from the sweetheart #Occupy people.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/25/BAK41M4FV0.DTL
"Two dozen Occupy protesters began marching around downtown at sundown, chanting protest slogans. They'd hoped to make their anti-consumption point at the annual Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Union Square, but the crowd was so massive they couldn't get near."
Trying to stop a Christmas tree lighting ceremony? Fail.
Banned troll is clueless. Did you read Jhnn's definition of robbery?
Does this make it crystal clear?
Robbery BY DEFINITION is using threat of force. Reading comprehension for you is hard I guess.
Anyone want to start a poll to see how long before this guy gets banned again?
LMAO@OWS!!!! When are they going to realize less than 20% of Americans even give a shit about them/their movement.
I hear they coordinated the entire "anti-consumerist" march using iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks. They then piled into their parents' SUVs and headed downtown...More news from the sweetheart #Occupy people.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/25/BAK41M4FV0.DTL
"Two dozen Occupy protesters began marching around downtown at sundown, chanting protest slogans. They'd hoped to make their anti-consumption point at the annual Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Union Square, but the crowd was so massive they couldn't get near."
Trying to stop a Christmas tree lighting ceremony? Fail.
You claim wikipedia knows more about the law than the law itself. It is clear, from the statute, that violence is not required in order to rob a bank.
How about this, show me the part where violence is required. Remember, if I can perform said acts without violence then you are wrong. Handing a note that says "give me money", while saying nothing and just standing there peacefully is not a violent act.
So...I have a statute that does not require violence in order for the crime to be committed and you have wikipedia saying it does...I am sure a judge would listen to wiki over the actual law...not.
Christ you're a dumbshit. What do you think we've been talking about on this thread for 4,200+ posts? If you want to start a thread and talk about UC Davis, and only UC Davis, start another thread. In a post a ways up I said I thought the police chief at UC Davis should be fired, not because what he did was illegal, but it was stupid. I've said on more than one occasion that if protesters break the law by obstructing a road or a sidewalk or etc. they are breaking the law. If they then refuse police orders to disperse and/or leave the area they are breaking another law. That if they then link arms and/or legs they are then not only breaking still another law, but are resisting lawful arrest. That is (depending on who's doing the interpreting) violent. When they resist arrest the protesters open themselves up to being pepper sprayed legally. You may not like it, so what.
Noun 1. resisting arrest - physical efforts to oppose a lawful arrest; the resistance is classified as assault and battery upon the person of the police officer attempting to make the arrest
linking arms is a physical effort. D'oh
I'm going to say this one more time: the statute you have quoted defines more than one crime, and only one of those crimes is "bank robbery." This is not "wikipedia versus a federal statute." You are deflecting and ignoring the point. Answer the question: what does the title of the statute mean when it says, "and incidental crimes"? Answer the question.
It is so ironic you being so clueless you don't even know what you are arguing about. Reading is so difficult for you?
For several pages, myself and others have pointed out it was wrong to pepperspray the UCDavis protesters. In your infinite trollness and ignorance, you jumped in claiming it was OK, and that other OWS protesters were violent. So why don't you learn to read?
Again, your claim that pepperspraying UCD is OK somehow by claiming other OWS protest sites were violent is total bullshit. That is simple fact. Sorry if you cannot or will not understand that, but it is a simple fact. Again ,learn to read.
Use one from a federal statute...you know, like the one which defined what is Bank Robbery...the one you claim that Wikipedia is more authoritative than.
You just make yourself look the fool when you quote wikipedia and claim it is more authoritative than the actual law when defining what constitutes the law.
If you do not like the definition of bank robbery provided by the federal statute on bank robbery, take it up with Congress. Pretending the actual law is wrong about what is needed to violate the law is foolish.
Look, we refuse to get it.