You just can’t make this stuff up, folks:
A man who walked into a bank, gave a teller a note saying “This is a robbery” and then demanded money, took $600 cash from the teller, and left the bank with it, has been cleared of a robbery charge by a judge who ruled what he did is not, in fact, a robbery.
The judge found a bank robbery is only a bank robbery if the teller is scared..
What do you call it when people are scared by a ruling?
(Justice Gary Trotter) pointed out the word “robbery” and its past tense “robbed” have many meanings in common parlance, from break and enter to financial fraud. “More colloquially, and beyond the realm of the criminal law, the term ‘robbed’ is sometimes used to describe great misfortune in other circumstances, including sporting events,” the judge wrote.
Nick said: “But suppose, instead, I were to say “My dear fellow, no need to threaten. I’m a very generous fellow, and since you look as though you need a few bucks, I give you 50 of ’em.”, and I hand over the cash. Now: have you robbed me?”
Obviously.
As soon as the guy says “you money or your life” its a robbery. The actions of the victim following that statement are irrelevant. You hand a bank teller a note that says “This is a robbery, give me the money” and everything that follows is irrelevant. The victim cannot know if you are armed, they can’t know your “intent” other than what is stated on the note. It doesn’t matter what victims do or how they feel, because what makes it a robbery is THE ROBBER.
Consider if the teller had decided “not today, beeotch!” and hammered this pr1ck with her purse. Where’s her right of self defense here if a robbery note that says “THIS IS A ROBBERY” is insufficient to constitute a -robbery-? Where’s her recourse under the law? She’s F-ed, isn’t she?
This kind of thing is why Canada is rapidly becoming Detroit. Taxes go up, freedom disappears, and even the appearance of Justice disappears behind a cloud of corruption, politically correct bullsh1t, cronyism and rent seeking.
Civilization is not a natural state, its a construction made by people. It CAN be broken, and this is how you break it. This judge needs to be removed from the bench and censured. Like, harshly. So all the other judges hear about it and their toes curl up inside their wingtip loafers.
“The judge is saying that absence a threat of coercion(a necessary part of the legal definition of robbery), what occurred was a theft, but not a robbery.”
People keep their money in the bank because it is supposed to be a secure place to keep it.
A thief going to a bank, a secured place, in broad daylight to take money that is not his is committing robbery. If the money is not being removed by stealth it is being removed by force or threat thereof.
Since further elaboration is necessary: To come to an explicitly secured place to take away other people’s money that was not his during open hours explicitly implies a threat must be made or felt in order to walk away with other people’s money.
A bank is explicitly a secure place to keep money, if not, then we all need to keep our money at home.
Come back when you actually understand the law.
To paraphrase a notable leftoid, “it’s not like it was ‘robbery robbery’ or anything like that.”
Ok, quick summary for those of you who don’t understand this case and decision (most of you, apparently).
Perp shows up with a note: “this is a robbery”. No weapon seen or alluded to.
Judge says”Ok, robber or not?” No weapon. No threat. No threat of a weapon. A piece of paper that is a note is not, in and of itself, a physical weapon. So, did the victim believe they were threatened personally, or personally at risk by either the perp, his actions, or the content of the note?
Victim says “nope” on all counts. Says to perp: “here’s the money, bugger off”. Perp does, gets caught.
Judge says “guilty of theft ’cause he took the money”. Crown gets a prosecution of theft. Judge asks:”did anyone feel coerced to give him the money?” Answer comes back “Nope”.
Judge says: “doesn’t meet the legal test for robbery then. Not guilty of robbery.”
Had any of those “nopes” been “yeps”, there would have been a conviction.
Clear case of bank theftery.
“…That his intention to rob is by itself insufficient for robbery is made plain by the distinction between robbery and attempted robbery. …”
I will suggest that the distinction between robbery and attempted robbery is whether the robbery was completed. If he got the money and left, it was robbery. If he was stopped at any point before departing the place where he attempted the robbery, or if he got away without taking anything, it would be attempted robbery. The robber’s intent was the same regardless of the outcome.
Skip said: “Judge says”Ok, robber or not?” No weapon. No threat. No threat of a weapon.”
See Skip, that you’re even entertaining this seriously is an indication the propaganda is working.
In the Real World where we all live, when you hand a teller a note saying “this is a robbery” and demand money, it’s a f-ing robbery.
Because in the Real World, just because you can’t see a weapon doesn’t mean there is none. They guy could be wearing exploding shoes. He could have a gun in his pants. He could have a knitting needle and be set to stick it in your brain. He could be trained to kill people with his index finger. (Yes, that’s a real thing, its called the Iron Finger and there’s a whole Shaolin Temple tradition that goes with it.)
Point is, you -don’t-know- and in principle cannot know. Also up until now, in LAW you cannot be presumed to know. In law, the announcement that “this is a robbery” is all that is required to make it a robbery.
Because why? Because there’s a long history of unremarkable and nonthreatening people suddenly killing other people, is why. How quickly we forget the unremarkable guy who suddenly killed the kid sitting next to him on the bus, and then ATE him. Stuff happens all the time.
Which is why, under the law, victims are held blameless if, once informed that “this is a robbery” they ASSUME their robber/assaulter/rapist/would-be murderer is armed and the victim acts accordingly. By killing his @ss. If it is later determined that bulge under his coat was a fish taco, too bad so sad.
Except now we have a judge, who knows better, deciding he wants to make New Law. Which we may suspect he would be disinclined to do if faced with the large, White, gnarly Phantom in court instead of little doofus Jorge Luis Oliveiros Ortega.
Two tiered Justice isn’t.
Come back when you actually understand the law.
To rephrase, come back when you know the difference between a legal system and a justice system…and that most lawyers prefer a legal system.
The money shouldn’t have looked so sexy….
As to how the facts of case were presented to Court, probably ‘Not Guilty of Robbery but I believe definitely ‘Guiltyqabuvw’ of the lesser included offence of Theft.
Phantom, simply, no.
Let’s parse the Criminal Code offense:
Robbery
343. Every one commits robbery who
(a) steals, and for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property;
(b) steals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person;
(c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or
(d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 302.
There are three prosecutable, conditioned, actions in this section, any one of which will lead to a charge and possible conviction for robbery.
S343(a) has two components to be satisfied for a conviction: that something has been stolen, and “uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property”. The two conditions are NOT mutually exclusive. BOTH must occur. In the case at bar, the second condition was ambiguous in law because no violence was used nor was their an overt threat of violence. As I’ve said before, and the judge addressed this (in his discussion of the colloquial use of the term “robbery”, the fact of the note and the word “robbery” on it, didn’t constitute a threat of violence in and of itself, EXCEPT in the possible circumstance where victim felt they WERE actually threatened by the note. The victim said no…. Be careful how you view this, because to be too loose with the concept of threat opens the door to just about everything that gets written on the web…
A threat only becomes a threat when a course of action is unambiguous, or implied in such a way as to have no other interpretation, and the intended victim has a real perception of possible harm.
Because the victim did NOT perceive a threat of violence implicit in the note, subsection 343(a) could not apply. Subsections (b), (c), and (d) do NOT apply at all in the case at bar.
Hence, the only chargeable section of the Criminal Code in respect of robbery in the case at bar is s343(a), and because the second condition could not realistically be met, the charge failed. The judge got it right.
Slight correction; I said three prosecutable actions – there are four. Subsection 343(d) ties a ribbon on ss343(a) when an actual physical weapon is involved.
Pop quiz to everyone supporting the judge. If the teller was not threatened in any way why did they give up the cash?
Duh, nobody just gives a thief money unless there’s force, or an implied threat of force. Obviously.
Lawyers just love the parsing of justice. Otherwise, they would be of no use.
Interesting discussion.
What if the note had said “This is a robbery, if you give me the money I won’t hurt you” and the Teller later testified that she wasn’t at all scared because she believed she wouldn’t be hurt?
Because that’s standard bank procedure. Tellers are told not to resist and to comply.
And Strad, we don’t have a justice system, we have a legal system. The two are not synonyms.
Ask the judge, not me. He will be the one who decides whether the note raises the threshold to a convictable level. Don’t forget, even if he’d been found guilty of simple robbery as well as theft, he would likely have served punishment concurrently…
We have both a legal system and a justice system. Problem is, the legal system can be codified (and it is), whereas the justice component is subjective. The judge, the crown, the defense attorney and the arresting officer all come to the table with their version of what constitutes justice when the legal system is invoked. It’s the judge’s duty to make a decision based on the law. Case law and the mitigating circumstances of the case are where he has a limited opportunity to apply justice to his decision. Not all crimes have only one victim: the perp may be a victim too, if circumstances dictate. Theft cases, especially, are often not about raw criminal intent. People do steal out of desperation for food, medicine(as opposed to drugs) to aid themselves or others, when other avenues fail them. How the court deals with these cases is where the “justice” comes in. Its a very grey world out there.
james, as has been mentioned, banks tell the tellers to just hand it over. As I mentioned above, no bank wants a repeat of the case I spoke about earlier (shot teller). I interviewed the perp 2 weeks before he pulled the trigger. We had a cordial, but firm conversation. I have no idea whether I helped him go over the edge, or whether he was already there. Lost a lot of sleep over that one.
Now you know why it takes 2-5 YEARS for a case to come to trial. Why it takes months as in the Eaton’s Centre shooting with all the video, witnesses, pleading guilty of the perp taking place to have the trial. Conviction in this case should be done in a day at most. Look at this Magnotta trail that endlessly drags on.
Here we have intelligent posters like Skip, CGH, Phantom and others dissecting the nit of a gnat making good points on each side.
Years ago when I appeared in court on a Employment Insurance fraud as the woman was gainfully employed by our company while also collecting EI the judge, crown and defence spent 4 days discussing the case as the judge stated to the defence “That is an excellent point and we should discuss it. I wanted to stand up and say the woman signed the form that said “Are you receiving money from other employment” by stating “No I am not” so she is guilty as charged. The EI officer said lucky you didn’t or the judge would have charged you with contempt. I answered that is what I feel, total contempt for this legal system.
Standard procedure if it’s a robbery. If it’s not then the clerk is guilty of a crime here.
And Strad, we don’t have a justice system, we have a legal system. The two are not synonyms.
I know, that’s the problem. It’s been a problem for some time…
Mat 23:24 Ye blind guides, which habitually filter out the gnat, and gulp down the camel.
Just to add further meaning, a camel is unclean to eat as food.
‘So all the other judges hear about it and their toes curl up inside their wingtip loafers’
Phantom has made a comment that you could take to the bank.
Sorry, haven’t read this thread all the way through, so forgive me if these points already brought up.
I don’t think the camp that thinks this is theft without robbery are not thinking this through. If there was no threat (robbery), there was no theft. This guy is only guilty of leaving with a gift not authorized by the bank management.
If there was no threat, logically, how is this situation any different than a panhandler on the street, other than venue? Or conversely, how is panhandling not considered robbery?
The teller not be scared is a poor test, IMO. I have been threatened, but not necessarily scared as the situation did not warrant it.
off to life, may be back to answer later.
If you approach a bank teller and hand her a note telling her that you are robbing the bank (the guy actually said “this is a robbery”), it is, IMO, just based on (well understood) precedent if nothing else, a prima facie threat of force, and therefore a robbery.
If a panhandler asks you for spare change it’s neither robbery nor theft; if he deftly pickpockets your wallet, it’s theft, but not robbery; if he informs you that he is robbing you, it’s a robbery.
Also, if it’s not a robbery the clerk shouldn’t have handed out the money right? No threat, no need to comply.
That’s a good point: if the clerk didn’t feel threatened why did she give him the $600?
Some commenters in this thread make reasonable arguments in favor of the ruling, but I still question the notion that the feelings of the person being robbed should determine the culpability of the accused; the charge should be based on the actions of the perp. Some intended victims of robbery – certain Korean small-store owners come to mind – show no fear, only rage, when an armed goon demands money. Is it not a robbery in those cases because the victims fight back instead of feeling scared?
I dunno. To me, if you walk into a bank and hand a note to the teller saying “this is a robbery”, it’s a robbery.
Clearly there case involves a Hispanic and not a White Hispanic, hence the judge in his infinite wisdom decided that a robbery is not a robbery. Just remember it folks, when someone breaks into your house their skin color will matter. Ask Sam Gualtieri if you have any doubts.
Double standards twice as good.
This is yet another Orwellian sentence from a system where crime is a social construct. And then demagogues bend over backwards explaining how we were always we were always at war with Eastasia.
I agree with you.
But they (and the judge) argue that the note even though it said “this is a robbery” didn’t rise to the level of threat, real or implied.
If I go in the bank, smile at the teller hand a note to him that says “May I please have money” and I get it, is it robbery, theft or a gift? I can no more do this than tell an airport screener that I have a bomb in my luggage even if I don’t. I would argue that given the venue, the note itself implies a threat. Or given the venue, the bank, percieves a threat (not necessarily the teller), else why give the money.
The panhandler could be robbery if they their manner implies a threat. A pick pocket is guilty of theft. Someone removing my property without my permission is guilty of theft (although oddly enough the government gets to do that).
I don’t believe the state of mind of the victim (teller) matters. If it does, then our courts become no different than the Human Rights Starchambers where it doesn’t matter if something is true, only how some felt about it.
Skip said: “…uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property;…”
Yes, I know. “This is a robbery.” is a threat. Duh. For the reasons I outlined briefly above.
In fact, there’s a link in this article to an October 9th article on the Supreme Court decision that “By threatening to harm his victims while committing robbery, [the defendant] used violence against them,” which is what I said above.
Thus this judge is in direct contravention of the Supreme Court of Canada. Merely saying “This is a robbery” -does- make it a robbery, merely saying “I have a gun” is the same as actually having a gun in law.
Implication here of course, saying “I’m going to pound you soft” may get you the same jail time as actually pounding the guy soft. Shut up, they explained.
Plan accordingly, my friends.
Brean’s article is extremely poorly written. It’s less factual and more about his opinion of what the law is or is not. I will have to read the actual court decision, wherein I expect it to be very clear. The SCC reference is irrelevant because the facts in the case do not align.
Based on the article no threat was made to the teller (and no, the note doesn’t constitute a threat), and the teller didn’t perceive a threat. therefore 343(a) is not prosecutable. Because the bank has a policy of passive compliance, the teller followed bank direction when an illegal request for money was made. The perp committed the theft when a) he demanded money he did not have title to, and b) when he took it into his possession. In order for it to be a robbery, he would have had to actually threaten, produce or allude to a weapon, or suggest harm to the teller. Didn’t do any of those, hence, no robbery.
but does the bank itself perceive the actions of the defendant as a threat?
Seems to me they must, else why a blanket policy to give money away?
I agree with that we should dig deeper than the article. “Journalists” make poor reporters.
No its not, not under the law, its only a statement of fact – quit trying to make out that it is. For it to be a threat, there must be one or more of the following attached: evidence of a weapon either implied or actual, or perception by the victim that they are at risk of actual harm. As to whether the word “robbery” implies a threat, the judge will interpret that in the context of the events: what was said and done by the perp, and what was perceived by the victim. In this case, there doesn’t appear to been any threat made and the teller didn’t perceive that one was made. Again, the judge therefore concluded it was not a robbery under 343(a).
Phantom: in your statement” In fact, there’s a link in this article to an October 9th article on the Supreme Court decision that “By threatening to harm his victims while committing robbery, [the defendant] used violence against them,” which is what I said above. the money quote upon which the SCC decision depends is this part: “By threatening to harm his victims”. This is the threat component, not “I’m committing a robbery”. In the absence of a specific or implied threat of violence, 343(a) doesn’t apply. In the SCC commentary, there is a specific or implied threat of violence, hence 343(a) is fulfilled; not so in the case we’re talking about. The SCC commentary is irrelevant.
For the purpose of prosecuting a bank “robbery”, its not necessary to convict on 343(a). With a policy of passive compliance, the bank sets up the perp for a charge of theft by allowing him to take funds to which he is not entitled. The passive compliance practice is established so that teller won’t have to engage or encourage a threat in order for the perp to perfect the crime. If he comes in waving a gun, demanding money, he’s committed an attempted robbery and a theft.
“As to whether the word “robbery” implies a threat, the judge will interpret that in the context of the events:”
Yes, yes, you and the judge must be practitioners of the Whoopee Goldberg School of Law where subtle differences between robbery and robbery robbery are emphasized.
Those in the legal industry appear to have lost sight that neither victims or criminals exist in order that they incur a comfortable income.
Skip, you have described what the judge is doing quite well. The problem is, it’s the wrong thing for him to be doing. By frigging around with words, he’s created an unsafe condition in the real world where tellers don’t get protected from robbers, and my personal right of self defense is nullified.
You can’t have a legal system where you need a PhD and three opinions from gray bearded experts before you lift a hand to defend yourself. But WE DO. Now because of this judge, all the banks have to go spend a couple million bucks of lawyer time reviewing their robbery policy. That money is coming out of your pocket.
Plus, you have yet to address the PC Special Deal, where the Spanish guy gets a different response from the judge than the usual White punk does. That is -at least- the appearance of impropriety, itself a damaging thing.
Judge buddy needs to be officially crushed by the controlling authority.
The judge isn’t “friggin” around with words – he’s correctly interpreting the code. He’s actually one of the few judges who apparently IS correctly interpreting the code. Because his interpretation is what the code actually says….
Case law is replete with judges running off with the code and interpreting the words of the code to fit their own world view. Statutes are crafted with great care in order for the intent of parliament to be as clear as possible, AND to allow the right lines to be drawn between tolerable behavior and intolerable behavior.
In all of the examples listed by commenters to this thread, you included, EVERY ONE includes an overt threat in their robbery example. That is what the CCC section intended, and that’s what’s different in the case at bar. I will repeat for the umpteenth time, the judge deduced no credible threat in the “robbery” attempt. As the section is written, a creditable threat is REQUIRED to perfect prosecution. This is why judges will go to the victim to ascertain if the victim felt they were threatened. It is fundamental to the concept of a threat, that in the absence of an overt act, the only person who determine if they were threatened, is the potential victim.
Banks don’t have to do anything. They have already set the stage for dealing with the theft of money at the counter by the policy of passive compliance. This policy and its legal response (charge of theft) reduces the need for a teller to escalate the counter event to a level of violence in order to secure a conviction for robbery. Yes, bank thieves will figure out if they play nice, they can avoid a robbery charge. That is an intended consequence. The perp is still guilty of a punishable offense, and nobody gets hurt. It is CCC offense to take possession of monies you are not entitled to. That is theft. Robbery is the forcible taking of money you are not entitled to, and that’s the distinction the judge is taking. Had the teller testified that she felt threatened by the actions and demeanor of the thief, the judge would have upheld the robbery charge. This case is pretty clear legally. The issue isn’t the judge, its the lay public not understanding the law as it played out in this case, and the popular (mis)conceptions that people (including “journalists”) have about what constitutes robbery.
Here’s a question: you come home one night, unload a bunch of stuff out of your car and head into the house, leaving a bag (say, day’s business receipts for a small business) on your front porch, or on the front seat of your unlocked car. In the morning, its gone. How do you describe what happened to the police next morning? Most people will say they were “robbed” last night. They weren’t, but a theft did occur, it just wasn’t a robbery. Popular lore conjures up all kinds of names for a bank robbery: a “stick-up”, a “hold-up”, etc, all of which presuppose the old western and Bonnie and Clyde image of someone coming into a bank holding a gun or with a finger in a coat pocket threatening the tellers with being shot if they don’t fill the bags, and that’s exactly the scenario the Robbery section is written to deal with.
The banks have figured out (along with the Crown) that they can reduce the spectre of armed robberies AND still get a conviction under the CCC with the use of passive compliance. It has always been a legal test to determine if a bank theft rose to the level of a robbery under the CCC, and probably, in most cases, it did, because at some point the perp made an overt threat. In this case the judge said (in all likelihood because of mitigating circumstances on the part of the perp), “hang on, do we actually have a robbery offense, as defined by the CCC?”, and found that no, they did not. The police lay both charges because the robbery charge has a higher threshold of proof. That’s how the law is suppose to work. Judges AREN’T supposed to assume a certain crime was committed just because everybody else, including the perp, said so. Unfortunately, judges regularly make that assumption. One of the very worst courts for judicial abuse in Ontario is traffic court. People are regularly found guilty of traffic offenses that are highly questionable under the statutes charged, but that body of case law is huge.
And with that, I’m pretty much talked out about this case. 🙂
Well Skip the truth remains that law hinges on precedent and this judge decided he would establish some new ground all by himself because he didn’t want jail time for the defendant. It’s as simple as that.
“Be just and if you can’t be just, be arbitrary.” – William S. Burroughs
The problem is unraveling this sophistry.
Sophistry…a clever unsound argument…
The perp declared in writing “This is a robbery”….
Done! The note didn’t say this is a theft.
Great discussion and comments here but I think that most of you have missed the point in misuse of the King’s or Queen’s English. Theft by definition is the act of stealing or larceny, better explained as the act of surreptitiously acquiring goods or property to which you have no inherent right. Robbery is to despoil or remove from someone their property or goods by felonious violence. The judges and lawyers can mince it up all they want , the bottom line is that by the very nature of the note done in broad day-light this was an out and out act of robbery. It was not done by subterfuge or fraud. If the perp had broken into the bank in the dead of night and stolen the money that would constitute theft. The very act of delivering the robbery note to the teller in broad daylight implies violence, the intent to commit the crime. The teller’s feelings has SFA to do with the crime. The banks policy of “just hand over the money, we’ll deal with it later” is the reason the teller was unafraid.