He committed theft in Texas and bank robbery under federal laws. This shows how hard it is to interpret the various laws sometimes. But, there is an easy way to show that Texas sees it a little differently than you do. Under 31.03, the penalty for theft is automatically upgraded to a state jail felony if the item is stolen from a person or corpse.Sangiovese wrote:You're right. I was careless in my wording. I should have said, "aware" vs "present."boomerang wrote:I think shoplifting a candy bar is generally considered theft even if the storekeeper is present.
Shoplifting is attempting to take something without being spotted. If is not using intimidation to take the item.
Take a bank robbery for example. Guy walks in, hands the teller a note saying "fill the bag up with money." He never spoke a word. There is no threat written in the note. Did he commit robbery or theft?
As shown in the other quote, robbery requires force or a threat against a person, or fear. Case law has accepted that an injured person is the result of force by definition (and I had one case where we got an aggravated robbery conviction for a shoplifter knocking the manager down and breaking her wrist when he bumped her as he ran from the store).
This is why one of my pet peeves is when reporters (or others) say a house was robbed. It was burglarized, not robbed. The owner might have been robbed, but the house could not be.
EDIT: Incidentally, if you want an interesting court case (NO, I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS) think of the person who gives a bank teller a note that reads "I would appreciate you giving me $10,000 in twenties, please." This is a request, not a demand. If the person complies, was a theft committed? By who? The person with the note has permission from the bank teller. The bank teller is obeying a policy to always comply with robbers. But theft is taking property without the effective consent of the owners and I don't think the person with the note has the consent of the bank owners.