How is this robbery?

[FoBoT]

http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/lordnoob/thisthreadrocks.jpg

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/lordnoob/thisthreadrocks.jpg

Well thank you.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: allisolm
How is this robbery?
Topic Summary: news article...UPDATED....I .was right

LOL
I still haven't figured out what you were right about.

This thread just keeps delivering.

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: allisolm
How is this robbery?
Topic Summary: news article...UPDATED....I .was right

LOL
I still haven't figured out what you were right about.

Because since the teller was involved it was not a robbery but i believe a conspiracy to defraud.

I missed the part where you said that you did not think it was a robbery because you couldn't understand the term "implied" but rather due to the fact that it was an inside job.

I know what implied means. It is my contention they posed no threat to anyone regardless of what the note said. Maybe banks shouldn't just hand over money based on words printed on paper but only when a clear overt threat has been made. Perhaps visible weapons, physical intimidation, i don't know.

Maybe the note was nothing but an idle threat. If they brought no weapons to back up their threat, then that's all it was. Right?

I'm sure that you'll be the first one to sign up as a bank teller under your new rules, right? Guy says "give me the money, i have a gun". You say, " I don't believe you, show me the gun." The gun comes out and now everybody is panicking, including the armed man in front of you that you just gave a hard time to.

Or do you just expect other people to die and get taken hostage and not yourself? Under your rules every bank robbery would become an armed confrontational affair. Seeing as how most of these people get caught anyway, what's the point in putting the lives of bank employees and customers at risk?

 

[allisolm]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: allisolm

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: allisolm
How is this robbery?
Topic Summary: news article...UPDATED....I .was right

LOL
I still haven't figured out what you were right about.

Because since the teller was involved it was not a robbery but i believe a conspiracy to defraud, or simple theft. By the way are you insane or on some kind of medication for your delusions?

Ah, rather like saying that Britney Spears is rich because she's brilliant and, when it's shown that her IQ has nothing to do with it, saying "see, I was right, she's rich."

I got it.

You are obviously much more intelligent than me, why do you bother with me? I'm not worth your trouble. I admit it, i am wrong and you're right. In fact you are better than me... Yes?No?

Well, thank goodness you recognized the truth of it all.

 

[waggy]

hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: allisolm

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: allisolm

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: allisolm
How is this robbery?
Topic Summary: news article...UPDATED....I .was right

LOL
I still haven't figured out what you were right about.

Because since the teller was involved it was not a robbery but i believe a conspiracy to defraud, or simple theft. By the way are you insane or on some kind of medication for your delusions?

Ah, rather like saying that Britney Spears is rich because she's brilliant and, when it's shown that her IQ has nothing to do with it, saying "see, I was right, she's rich."

I got it.

You are obviously much more intelligent than me, why do you bother with me? I'm not worth your trouble. I admit it, i am wrong and you're right. In fact you are better than me... Yes?No?

Well, thank goodness you recognized the truth of it all.

You won so ...take a hike.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

So you aren't suspicious of people being charged with bank robbery who have no deadly weapons with them. How many bank robbers rob banks without bringing weapons with them? I don't think very many would. What do you think?

 

[mugs]

news article...UPDATED....I .was right

You were right? The situation changed entirely because the teller was in on it.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

So you aren't suspicious of people being charged with bank robbery who have no deadly weapons with them. How many bank robbers rob banks without bringing weapons with them? I don't think very many would. What do you think?

who fvcking cares if they had a weapon or not?

say this was not a inside job. they go in and say give me the money please. it is still a robbery. NO matter if they have weapons or not.

You have to beleive that the person holding up the bank is armed every time. you really can't take the chance they arent.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

So you aren't suspicious of people being charged with bank robbery who have no deadly weapons with them. How many bank robbers rob banks without bringing weapons with them? I don't think very many would. What do you think?

You get in a lot more trouble if you bring a deadly weapon with you...

That's a good incentive not to bring one.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

From the review of the 6 or so court cases I did the other day, I'm pretty sure it can't be prosecuted as a robbery because the teller could not have feared for his life.

He knew the girls, he knew they weren't going to hurt him in any way. Without the overt, or implied threat it can't rise to the level of robbery no matter what the note did or did not say.

Fern

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

From the review of the 6 or so court cases I did the other day, I'm pretty sure it can't be prosecuted as a robbery because the teller could not have feared for his life.

He knew the girls, he knew they weren't going to hurt him in any way. Without the overt, or implied threat it can't rise to the level of robbery no matter what the note did or did not say.

Fern

yeah it was a inside job. so of course the guy was not in fear he was in on it.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: mugs
news article...UPDATED....I .was right

You were right? The situation changed entirely because the teller was in on it.

You again, get lost. Get out of this IDIOTS thread.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

So you aren't suspicious of people being charged with bank robbery who have no deadly weapons with them. How many bank robbers rob banks without bringing weapons with them? I don't think very many would. What do you think?

who fvcking cares if they had a weapon or not?

say this was not a inside job. they go in and say give me the money please. it is still a robbery. NO matter if they have weapons or not.

You have to beleive that the person holding up the bank is armed every time. you really can't take the chance they arent.

So if I go in and say 'Give me $500' then I am a bank robber if they do it without any hesitation?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

So you aren't suspicious of people being charged with bank robbery who have no deadly weapons with them. How many bank robbers rob banks without bringing weapons with them? I don't think very many would. What do you think?

who fvcking cares if they had a weapon or not?

say this was not a inside job. they go in and say give me the money please. it is still a robbery. NO matter if they have weapons or not.

You have to beleive that the person holding up the bank is armed every time. you really can't take the chance they arent.

So if I go in and say 'Give me $500' then I am a bank robber if they do it without any hesitation?

if you go in and give the teller a note and not a trying to take money out of yoru account then yes.

if you take money that is NOT yours. then yeah.

just because you do not have a weapon does not change it. they have to suspect you have a gun for the safety of the other people in the bank.

 

[Tobolo]

Um Felony Theft = Robbery does it not?

You said the whole time that it wasn't "robbery" so how were you right?

 

[Aquaman]

Too bad they did not have a dye pack to add to the money.......... soon after they leave ......... boom dye all over the money and those 2

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Tobolo
Um Felony Theft = Robbery does it not?

You said the whole time that it wasn't "robbery" so how were you right?

Is shoplifting robbery? Car theft? robbery requires an explicit threat of force.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: KLin
Stupid teenagers. I hope they find them and charge them as adults. :roll:

Really? I hope they get away with it.

Screw the banks.

 

[ManyBeers]

Once again i have made the mistake of starting a thread in the quagmire that is Atot. When will i ever learn?

 

[EagleKeeper]

They have identified and rounded up the girls

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

So you aren't suspicious of people being charged with bank robbery who have no deadly weapons with them. How many bank robbers rob banks without bringing weapons with them? I don't think very many would. What do you think?

who fvcking cares if they had a weapon or not?

say this was not a inside job. they go in and say give me the money please. it is still a robbery. NO matter if they have weapons or not.

You have to beleive that the person holding up the bank is armed every time. you really can't take the chance they arent.

So it's kind of like a 'pretend' bank robbery. That way nobody is in any real danger.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

This thread is entertaining.

- M4H

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

So you aren't suspicious of people being charged with bank robbery who have no deadly weapons with them. How many bank robbers rob banks without bringing weapons with them? I don't think very many would. What do you think?

who fvcking cares if they had a weapon or not?

say this was not a inside job. they go in and say give me the money please. it is still a robbery. NO matter if they have weapons or not.

You have to beleive that the person holding up the bank is armed every time. you really can't take the chance they arent.

So it's kind of like a 'pretend' bank robbery. That way nobody is in any real danger.

pretend bank robbery? yeah they should go to pretend court be sent to pretend prison.


amazing. just fvcking amazing.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm looks like the only reason its not robbery is because it was a inside job. NOT because there was no weapon or such.

So you aren't suspicious of people being charged with bank robbery who have no deadly weapons with them. How many bank robbers rob banks without bringing weapons with them? I don't think very many would. What do you think?

who fvcking cares if they had a weapon or not?

say this was not a inside job. they go in and say give me the money please. it is still a robbery. NO matter if they have weapons or not.

You have to beleive that the person holding up the bank is armed every time. you really can't take the chance they arent.

So it's kind of like a 'pretend' bank robbery. That way nobody is in any real danger.

pretend bank robbery? yeah they should go to pretend court be sent to pretend prison.


amazing. just fvcking amazing.

You make a funny joke, but isn't it just pretending if you go rob a bank but bring no weapons
or any way of enforcing your demands?