Conquer Club

I was wondering if someone would want to edit my brief and or put there thoughts on the case.

State Of Michigan v. Glenn Terrance Williams

Issue:
Williams entered a gas station in making the employee believe that he had a gun. Williams forced the employee into the back room fleeing with $160. Williams than went to a tobacco store the next day with his hand in his pocket saying “you know what this is, just give me what I want,” Williams than fled without taking anything. He is being charged with armed robbery. Williams said he was going to plea guilty, but then withdrew his plea, because there was no factual basis.

Rule of law:
Armed robbery: Robbery committed while the person accused is armed with a dangerous weapon.

Analysis: (bold and underline)
The defendant said that there was no evidence that he took something of value from the store and by the definition of robbery, which is taking of property from another’s person or immediate presence, against the victims will, by force or by causing fear, he did not committee robbery. The prosecution said that he intended to take money or something of value from the stores which made him guilty of robbery.


Conclusion:
The court decided Williams was guilty. The court said that if you try to committee larceny you are still guilty of larceny. The court based the ruling on the wording of the amended robber statue in 2004.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20MICO%2020120516334

I'm not touching that with a 40 foot pole (that I may or may not have in my pocket).

He'll be convicted. We have all heard the axiom that the pen is mightier than the sword, that's because Words have power. He used his words to strike terror. One can not walk into a crowded place and yell "fire", nor can one pretend to have deadly weapons in public places. People have already been convicted on just threatening to do something to a public official or building. You can bet this guy will be tried as though he used deadly force and have the book thrown at him. The days of getting away with some crime is getting less and less.

I have a relative (who's elderly now) who was imprisoned for pretending to have a gun in his jacket while committing robbery. Incidentally, he's still in prison, and has been most of his life.

Bollocks.

If a victim believes you have a gun, then it doesn't matter if you actually have a gun.

Failing to rob someone doesn't vindicate one from robbery (Duh).

Let's flip that logic and assume you would be exonerated for a failed crime. Suppose you were trying to kill someone with an ax, but you only managed to bury it in the victim's arm. The victim flees, and you are now ax-less. You would be charged with assault--instead of murder (i.e. attempted murder).


Different question: should people who fail at a robbery be charged with attempted robbery, thus receive a lesser punishment?
(I don't think they should).

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Let's flip that logic and assume you would be exonerated for a failed crime. Suppose you were trying to kill someone with an ax, but you only managed to bury it in the victim's arm. The victim flees, and you are now ax-less. You would be charged with assault--instead of murder (i.e. attempted murder).

How many attorneys are thinking, "hhhmmm we should sue that guy for stealing his axe with his arm". Lol

40kguy wrote:I was wondering if someone would want to edit my brief and or put there thoughts on the case.

I think if you've made it all the way to law school you should have passed third grade at some point and learned the difference between "their", "there" and "they're". {Hint: you meant to say "put their thoughts", although even with the correct word inserted it's a rather clumsy phrasing. How about "express their thoughts"?}

Other than that, you are correct. Within the law as it is described in your link, the man is guilty and the conviction should be overturned. The dissenting opinion is a lot of smoke and mirrors. The majority opinion is clear and gets right to the point without ducking and weaving. Although the common-law definition of a robbery does not include a failed robbery, statutory law trumps common law and the revised statute is pretty clear about including attempted robbery in the definition.

Is that morally right? (Utterly irrelevant to the law, of course, but interesting to ponder.) Why do we have crimes like attempted burglary, attempted robbery, or attempted murder, if not to codify the common-law concept that a failed crime is not quite the same as a successful crime? I think at least part of it is the suspicion that failed crimes are often the result of doubts created by conscience, and we want to encourage whatever nascent pilot light of a conscience you have inside you.

universalchiro wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Let's flip that logic and assume you would be exonerated for a failed crime. Suppose you were trying to kill someone with an ax, but you only managed to bury it in the victim's arm. The victim flees, and you are now ax-less. You would be charged with assault--instead of murder (i.e. attempted murder).

How many attorneys are thinking, "hhhmmm we should sue that guy for stealing his axe with his arm". Lol

Conversion!