“You're wrong, again. A bank robbery is such because the bank clerks are in possession of the property, they have constructual possession because though it isn't theirs it is in their care, a security guard is working for the shop but cannot be robbed of the items as the property could be taken regardless of whether he is there or not. A bank could not be robbed without a clerk being put in fear of violence/being subjected to violence before the theft is carried out because the money must be handed over from behind the counter...Now, if a thief crept into a banks vault and stole money from within the safe it would not be a bank robbery, it would be a burglary, again if the clerk stopped him on the way out and the clerk was assaulted, it would again be a burglary and an assault. The whole point of robbery is that somebody was put in fear of violence or were assaulted BEFORE/AT TIME the theft takes place and the ability to commit the theft is dependent on violence being offered/used by the offender. That's the crux of a robbery, if the theft is before the assault and violence is not required to carry out the theft but to make good an escape it is generally a theft and an assault. I'm not having a go because your logic is sound, but sadly in our legal system you're wrong.”

“Beeebo...

The fact the hypothetical security guard doesn't own the stolen items is neither here nor there, he is acting as an agent of the shop employed to prevent theft. Property does not need to belong to the assaulted person for the crime to be robbery nor does the assaulted person have to have any direct relationship to the owner of the goods. If you read the definition it states "uses force on *any* person, or puts or seeks to put *any* person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.". If a member of the public seeks to prevent a theft and is assaulted as a result then that too is robbery.

If actual ownership was a legal requirement then there would be no such thing as a bank robbery. How many bank clerks do you know who actually own the money they handle?”

“No, you're mixed-up Mark Hull honestly...think of it this way, the security guard doesn't own the stolen property, he's simply trying to stop a crime [theft] being carried out, he is assaulted in the process but doesn't become a victim of a robbery..he becomes the victim of an assault, there would be two crimes recorded, one of theft against the shop and one of assault against the security guard. Also, burglary+assault does not equal automatically become a robbery, in this instance it is robbery because the victim was assaulted and threatened with violence in order to carry out the theft aspect, but, if the offender entered an empty house, stole jewellery from upstairs but then as he is leaving the house the homeowner comes home and to get out of the house punches the homeowner this would not be robbery, it would be burglary and an assault...”

“FreeWilly...

The law doesn't state what counts as 'at the time of' and the act of theft isn't complete simply because the person actually has the stolen goods or money in their possession. A crime doesn't have to be an instantaneous act (although it can be) it can and does include a whole course of action.

In this case the act of theft would have started at the time he forced himself in to the home and ended at the very earliest at the time he left the premises. As he assaulted his victim to force him to hand over the money it's quite clearly using force to obtain the money and therefore robbery. If there had been no assault of the victim but the thief had assaulted a passer by who intervened as he tried to leave the property then that too could constitute a robbery.

Remember the definition above says "immediately before or at the time of doing so" it does not give a definition of what constitutes 'at the time'.

Either way in this case the victim was clearly assaulted 'at the time' of the offence and therefore the definition of robbery has been satisfied.”

“Beeebo...

Burglary and assault together are robbery.

"Definition of Robbery

A person is guilty of robbery if he/she: steals and - immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so - uses force on any person, or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force."

Source: Sussex police website - http://tinyurl.com/7aftgbk

It would be hard to find another case which fits the bill so closely.”

“I'm with beeebo on that, robbery is when a threat or violence is used to obtain something. If they took the belongings without threat or violence, but then ended up assaulting someone after the item was stolen, it is theft and assault.”

“Mark Hull, your example 3 isn't robbery...it is a burglary and an assault, trust me on this one!”

“I don't know Mickey but where there's blame there's a claim.”

“@Mark_Hull
What if someone buys me a copy of Jedwards greatest hits and I naturally use the CD as a coaster, but the hot cup of coffee slips off and scalds my foot. Who would be liable?”

“Note to my devoted readers: Please excuse the intermittent use of the H and U keys. I think this laptop is nearing time when it will have to be humanely put to sleep.”