Robbery is defined as "forcible stealing" (Gardner & Anderson, 2015, p.390) and this mainly occurs when the victims are present for the property being forcibly taken from him or her. The six main elements in a robbery includes "taking and carrying away, of the property of another, with intent to steal, from the person or from the presence of the victim, by the use of force against the person, or, with the threat of the use of imminent force to compel the victim to acquiesce in the taking and carrying away of the property" (Gardner & Anderson, 2015, p.391). Another close subject to robbery is burglary and that is defined as "unlawful entry into the premises of another with intent to steal or commit a felony" (Gardner & Anderson, 2015, p.400). Burglary in common law and modern law is still defined in the same way but the law has changed since common law days. Common law burglary was punishable by death for intending to commit a felony. Modern law burglary is now punishable by felony or misdemeanor depending on the crime.
I think that the jewelry store case would be considered a robbery because the two robbers walked into the store with plenty of people around and "One had a sledgehammer, and he smashed a display case before a store security guard shot him (Desk & Francisco, 2013). This would be classified as robbery since the people had an intent of stealing jewelry in broad daylight while there were plenty of people and security around to stop them. Breaking into the jewelry case by smashing it would be perfect intention for getting to the jewelry and the two people did not use stealth and a plan to get the jewelry for when no one was around and they made a huge scene about the whole ordeal. This would be an aggravated crime since one individual had a sledgehammer with the intent to break things and that is a very dangerous weapon to where a lot of people could have gotten hurt so that could classify the crime as aggravated. I would probably end up charging the individuals with aggravated robbery.
Bob would end up being guilty of arson. Arson is defined as "A person commits an offense if the person starts a fire, regardless of whether the fire continues after ignition, or causes an explosion with intent to destroy or damage...knowing that it is subject to a mortgage or other security interest" (Texas Penal Code, Section 28.02). Bob is intentionally lighting his house on fire just because he does not want to deal with the financial aspect of the house. That is not something people can just do when they do not feel like taking responsibility for anymore. The punishment for this specific case of arson would be a felony to the second degree.
Section 30 of the Texas Penal Code discusses criminal trespassing and defines it as "A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person: (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so". Section 3503 of the Pennsylvania Penal Code addresses trespassing and the section closest to this scenario is that of defiant trespassing and it is defined as "A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by... posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders". If Joey did not realize that he was criminally trespassing onto the property he cannot be charged with trespassing because he did not have the knowledge of trespassing into the neighbor's yard. Even if there is a sign that says no trespassing, I do not think that Joey will be charged with defiant trespassing because the no trespassing sign was not put up by official law enforcement.
how would you agree or disagree with this statement?