• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

kid brings bat to rob a gun store!

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Maybe he thought 'who's going to shoot a KID with just a bat?' Perhaps he thought he'd just walk out? I'm actually surprised that 'ordering him to the ground' worked, and that the store owner wasn't charged with 'unlawful detainment' or kidnapping.

I do think the store owner should have shot him, since he was armed at the time he came out of the back. How was he to know that was an unloaded 'store gun'.

Would have saved the state some money. :/
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
How do you figure a 22 year old is a kid?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
How do you figure a 22 year old is a kid?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Well-l-l, the title of the thread?

When I was 22 I looked 15, if that; in fact, when I was 31 a middle-aged professional came to the store I was working at and didn't like something about the merchandise. He said 'you're just some dumb kid, let me talk to the manager'. So to the owner (and to himself) he probably thought he could get away with stuff due to his young appearance, IDK.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
How do you figure a 22 year old is a kid?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

There's an information fail in the media text, too.

Where's the robbery? A smash-and-grab is not a robbery. Where's the information that supports the robbery label? Who did the crook threaten with the bat in order to obtain the goods?

Garbage media.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
... I'm actually surprised that 'ordering him to the ground' worked, and that the store owner wasn't charged with 'unlawful detainment' or kidnapping.

....

Armed robbery (baseball bat and knife) is a violent felony. Use of deadly force to stop a violent felony is allowed. Can you be sure Mosley would not commit another violent felony if he were allowed to leave?

stay safe.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
Maybe he thought 'who's going to shoot a KID with just a bat?' Perhaps he thought he'd just walk out? I'm actually surprised that 'ordering him to the ground' worked, and that the store owner wasn't charged with 'unlawful detainment' or kidnapping.

I do think the store owner should have shot him, since he was armed at the time he came out of the back. How was he to know that was an unloaded 'store gun'.

Would have saved the state some money. :/

Maybe on the East and Left Coasts. Not in any other place. Holding a Felon for the police is NOT a crime.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
Maybe he thought 'who's going to shoot a KID with just a bat?' Perhaps he thought he'd just walk out? I'm actually surprised that 'ordering him to the ground' worked, and that the store owner wasn't charged with 'unlawful detainment' or kidnapping.

I do think the store owner should have shot him, since he was armed at the time he came out of the back. How was he to know that was an unloaded 'store gun'.

Would have saved the state some money. :/

I'm familiar with the penal codes and common law in three states and in all of them, average citizens absolutely have the right to detain a person who has committed a violent felony in their presence.

The force must be "reasonable" or they risk civil liability and possible criminal charges, but the force would have to be very egregious and disproportionate for those things to be concern. Unlike a LEO they do not have qualified immunity, however the courts generally accept that laypeople are not trained in UOF so give them a fair amount of leeway as long as they act "reasonably".

Store security detain people all the time and they have no special "powers" beyond that of any other citizen. They are just EMPLOYED to detect and detain but any average joe has the same authority that a store security officer has when it comes to detaining people for a witnessed felony
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
There's an information fail in the media text, too.

Where's the robbery? A smash-and-grab is not a robbery. Where's the information that supports the robbery label? Who did the crook threaten with the bat in order to obtain the goods?

Garbage media.

Not sure if serious. I googled and looked in legal dictionaries and they all say 'smash and grab robbery'. Can you elucidate?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Not sure if serious. I googled and looked in legal dictionaries and they all say 'smash and grab robbery'. Can you elucidate?

Common law

Robbery was an offence under the common law of England. Matthew Hale provided the following definition:
Robbery is the felonious and violent taking of any money or goods from the person of another, putting him in fear, be the value thereof above or under one shilling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbery#Common_law

A so-called "legal dictionary":

Robbery is a crime of theft and can be classified as Larceny by force or by threat of force. The elements of the crime of robbery include the use of force or intimidation and all the elements of the crime of larceny. The penalty for robbery is always more severe than for larceny.

The general elements of robbery are the taking of Personal Property or money from the person or presence of another, the use of actual or constructive force, the lack of consent on the part of the victim, and the intent to steal on the part of the offender.


The taking must be accomplished either by force or by intimidation. This element is the essence and distinguishing characteristic of the offense. Taking by force without intimidation is robbery. Taking by intimidation without the use of actual force is also robbery. Force and intimidation are alternate requirements, and either is sufficient without the other.

The force must be sufficient to effect the transfer of the property from the victim to the robber. It must amount to actual personal violence. The line between robbery and larceny from the person is not always easy to draw. For example, when a thief snatches a purse from the owner's grasp so suddenly that the owner cannot offer any resistance to the taking, the force involved is not sufficient to constitute robbery. Hence that crime would be larceny. If a struggle for the purse ensues before the thief can gain possession of it, however, there is enough force to make the taking robbery. The same is true of pick-pocketing. If the victim is unaware of the taking, no robbery has occurred and the crime is larceny. But if the victim catches the pickpocket in the act and struggles unsuccessfully to keep possession, the pickpocket's crime becomes robbery.

The particular degree of force becomes important only when considered in connection with the grade of the offense or the punishment to be imposed. Evidence establishing a personal injury or a blow, or force sufficient to overcome any resistance the victim was capable of offering, is not required.

A robber may also render the victim helpless by more subtle means. Constructive force includes demonstrations of force, menace, and other means that prevent a victim from exercising free will or resisting the taking of property. Administering intoxicating liquors or drugs in order to produce a state of unconsciousness or stupefaction is using force for purposes of robbery. Constructive force will support a robbery charge.

Intimidation means putting in fear. The accused must intentionally cause the fear and induce a reasonable apprehension of danger, but not necessarily a great terror, panic, or hysteria in the victim. The fear must be strong enough to overcome the victim's resistance and cause the victim to part with the property. The victim who is not fearful of harm from the robber so long as she does what the robber says, but who expects harm if she refuses, is nevertheless "put in fear" for the purposes of robbery.

Putting the victim in fear of bodily injury is sufficient. The fear can be aroused by words or gestures, such as threatening the victim with a weapon. The threat of immediate bodily injury or death does not have to be directed at the owner of the property. It may be made to a member of the owner's family, other relatives, or even someone in the owner's company.

The force or intimidation must either precede or be contemporaneous with the taking to constitute a robbery. Violence or intimidation after the taking is not robbery. If, however, the force occurs so soon after the taking that it forms part of the same transaction, the violence is legally concurrent with the taking. Force or intimidation employed after the taking and merely as a means of escape is not a sufficient basis for a robbery charge.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/robbery
 
Last edited:
Top