MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #2

[MyBelle]

Robbery in the second degree.
569.030. 1. A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property.

2. Robbery in the second degree is a class B felony.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5690000030.HTM

With the CCTV footage from the convenience store, I think he would have been charged and convicted of felony robbery - especially if the store clerk who he assaulted testified.

Of course he would have been charged with a felony. It's on tape. The Prosecutor isn't going to cut a <mod snip> any slack. I think he would be convicted on the basis of the video and other witnesses. The shop clerk wouldn't have to testify. I think these <mod snip> had been intimidating that clerk for a long, long time. He didn't call 911, some other customer did.

JMO

 

[liljim]

I'll pick experience, care to share some case studies you've experienced?

ooo you should have gone with opinion because im not a verified expert on websleuths.

 

[Simply Caustic]

BBM. Which is precisely why legislatures treat strong-arm robbery with the same degree of penalty as those that use a gun. The body itself can be a lethal weapon used to intimidate. In Missouri, the penalty is mandatory prison.

MISSOURI STATUTES AND CODES 571.015.
Armed criminal action, defined, penalty.......upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment ....for a term of not less than three years....No person convicted under this subsection shall be eligible for parole, probation, conditional release or suspended imposition or execution of sentence for a period of three calendar years.

2.Any person convicted of a second offense of armed criminal action shall be punished......for a term of not less than five years.....No person convicted under this subsection shall be eligible for parole, probation, conditional release or suspended imposition or execution of sentence for a period of five calendar years.
See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/missouri/t38/c571/571_015#sthash.x7QUsgQV.dpuf

Exactly. You're totally correct. As I've stated before here on WS, I worked for Cook County (Chicago) jail as an intern after college/before grad school. I had interaction with inmates. In that capacity, I can think of at least a half-dozen who were incarcerated for strong arm robbery, and couldn't believe their sentences (usually they were doing a year jail time) for simply sticking up a gas station, or a corner store, or a street vendor, and doing so violently.

It's a serious offense and treated as tantamount to using a weapon. When you're 6'6 and almost 300 lbs, you are a weapon - to a much smaller, diminutive shopkeeper, that is.

 

[Simply Caustic]

none have been posted that prove the contrary, none are even close to what we are talking about here.

post something that proves that the jails are full of 18 year old first time offenders that use no weapon and grab and shove then intimidate someone in the commission of a robbery.

nothing posted even remotely resembles that.

thanx!

ETA: Here's the first case I could grab off Google. He was actually convicted of a aggravated robbery, even though he didn't have a weapon. By keeping his hand in his pocket, he gave the impression of having a gun, and therefore was charged with the more serious offense, with a lengthier sentence.
http://law.justia.com/cases/utah/court-of-appeals-published/2011/meza081111.htmlThere are cases of first-time offenders doing jail sentences, for strong-arm robbery. I'll gladly hunt them down for you. However, to say that you want proof of "18 year old first time offenders..use no weapons and grab and shove then intimidate someone" is too specific. To prove the point, young first time offenders doing jail sentences for strong arm robbery should suffice.

 

[Frydaddy]

ooo you should have gone with opinion because im not a verified expert on websleuths.

I'm not usually one who goes with the easiest out for those who claim common sense and experience based on no obvious precedent. In your opinion, what would be the logic for giving an 18 year old a free pass on a strong arm robbery of cigars known to be used to roll blunts? Chips or a soda, yeah, I could see a reduction of the charge. $50 worth of smokes while bullying a store owner prolly not earning a free pass.

 

[Harmony 2]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...son-brown-shooting-20140815-story.html#page=1

 

[liljim]

There are cases of first-time offenders doing jail sentences, for strong-arm robbery. I'll gladly hunt them down for you. However, to say that you want proof of "18 year old first time offenders..use no weapons and grab and shove then intimidate someone" is too specific. To prove the point, young first time offenders doing jail sentences for strong arm robbery should suffice.

thanx for the effort, i think the unarmed and no significant injury resulting from battery is something a judge would deem important, you dont?

regardless thanx for anything you can provide that gives more context than the previously linked items which didnt give much IMO.

 

[MyBelle]

none have been posted that prove the contrary, none are even close to what we are talking about here.

post something that proves that the jails are full of 18 year old first time offenders that use no weapon and grab and shove then intimidate someone in the commission of a robbery.

nothing posted even remotely resembles that.

thanx!

Strong-arm robbery is the same as use of a weapon such as a gun. The body is the "weapon." Here is the video again.

WATCH: SURVEILLANCE VIDEO OF STRONG-ARM
ROBBERY TIED TO MICHAEL BROWN

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/15/watch-surveillance-video-strong-arm-robbery-tied-michael-brown

 

[liljim]

still waiting for that link providing a statement from LE that the officer had definitely deemed the 2 men suspects in a felony before the altercation occurred, thanx for any help with that.

 

[MyBelle]

thanx for the effort, i think the unarmed and no significant injury resulting from battery is something a judge would deem important, you dont?

regardless thanx for anything you can provide that gives more context than the previously linked items which didnt give much IMO.

It wasn't battery, it was assault.

JMO

 

[liljim]

Strong-arm robbery is the same as use of a weapon such as a gun. The body is the "weapon." Here is the video again.

WATCH: SURVEILLANCE VIDEO OF STRONG-ARM
ROBBERY TIED TO MICHAEL BROWN

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/15/watch-surveillance-video-strong-arm-robbery-tied-michael-brown

thanx for your reply, im confused tho, how could a video of the case we are discussing prove that the jails are full of 18 year olds guilty of the crime that we are discussing?

thanx for any further clarification you can provide.

 

[liljim]

It wasn't battery, it was assault.

JMO

oh darn, i must be confused about the difference between battery and assault, could you please clear that up for me?

thanx.

 

[fran]

Attention Please!
Reminder!

Use your links to back up strong statements of fact!

:bump:

 

[sorrell skye]

Of course he would have been charged with a felony. It's on tape. The Prosecutor isn't going to cut a any slack. I think he would be convicted on the basis of the video and other witnesses. The shop clerk wouldn't have to testify. I think these thugs had been intimidating that clerk for a long, long time. He didn't call 911, some other customer did.

JMO

In order for the video tape to be entered as evidence, the clerk on duty at the time of the incident would have to testify and verify that he (the clerk) was the one who was assaulted during the robbery and he would have to testify to identify the robber. Store surveillance video can't be entered as evidence unless a human being is able to be directly examined and cross-examined regarding the events depicted on the video.

 

[MyBelle]

still waiting for that link providing a statement from LE that the officer had definitely deemed the 2 men suspects in a felony before the altercation occurred, thanx for any help with that.

Since you are the only poster who claims the officer definitely deemed the 2 men suspects in a felony before the altercation occurred, shouldn't you be the one providing the link? I don't believe he did know. I think he realized Brown matched the BOLO after Brown refused the Officer's request to move out of the street and to the sidewalk.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

In order for the video tape to be entered as evidence, the clerk on duty at the time of the incident would have to testify and verify that he (the clerk) was the one who was assaulted during the robbery and he would have to testify to identify the robber. Store surveillance video can't be entered as evidence unless a human being is able to be directly examined and cross-examined regarding the events depicted on the video.

I don't believe that the clerk's testimony is needed because the police seized the video with a search warrant. He's a victim of a physical assault. Often victims don't have to testify if there is other compelling evidence such as the video and other witnesses in the store.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

thanx for your reply, im confused tho, how could a video of the case we are discussing prove that the jails are full of 18 year olds guilty of the crime that we are discussing?

thanx for any further clarification you can provide.

I made it clear on my post that it was just my opinion.

 

[liljim]

Since you are the only poster who claims the officer definitely deemed the 2 men suspects in a felony before the altercation occurred, shouldn't you be the one providing the link? I don't believe he did know. I think he realized Brown matched the BOLO after Brown refused the Officer's request to move out of the street and to the sidewalk.

JMO

im obviously claiming no such thing, so then we are in agreement, there is no such statement or proof, cool

 

[Simply Caustic]

thanx for the effort, i think the unarmed and no significant injury resulting from battery is something a judge would deem important, you dont?

regardless thanx for anything you can provide that gives more context than the previously linked items which didnt give much IMO.

JMO, allllllll of this:
The unarmed facet of the crime would factor in, yes. That's why it's not armed robbery, but the violence still requires strong-arm robbery. I would expect that a judge wouldn't hit him too hard...especially if he didn't have juvie cases, and going to college, etc. would all factor in his favor. They offer, IIRC, SIS in Missouri...so he could do the SIS (suspended imposition of sentence) and basically do a probation program. Those vary in length, sometimes 2 years, sometimes 3 - at that point, it wouldn't be on his record for life for an average background check. However, some criminal checks do see the probation/SIS, as the counselor explained to the inmates at the jail. So, even with probation, you are stuck dealing with that forever.

Felony robbery cannot be expunged: He would have a record, FOREVER. No way around it, if convicted.

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/27009_6.pdf
see the above link for a wonderful listing of sentencing guidelines by state, and the movement for those requesting sentencing reform. There's a chart - Page 6, IIRC - that shows the average sentences.

 

[Isabelle]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...son-brown-shooting-20140815-story.html#page=1

Thanks. I see in that article that Police Chief reported that Wilson did not know that Brown was a suspect in the strong arm robbery. Is that still correct or has that changed? Seems I am reading on the forum that Wilson did know about Brown being a suspect. Thanks