NFAC To March In Louisville Saturday, Kentucky protest LIVE streams.

originally posted by: yuppa
Ive seen people charged with it before. attempted robbery does exist.

We're talking about Georgia. Besides me the other poster showed you it doesn't exist.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sorry, you need to have a statute from Georgia that will show a theft had to have occurred for an Armed Robbery charge or your 100% INCORRECT.

The Statue said WITH INTENT nothing about being a successful Armed Robber.

So do you have a statute or are as you put it Ignorant of the Law?

George Floyd hologram? What the eff? This world has gone mad.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



code.dccouncil.us...

Pretty solid for not existing anywhere in the US

originally posted by: puzzled2
The Statue said WITH INTENT nothing about being a successful Armed Robber.

And there was no intent in the situation the other poster and I were discussing prior to your interjection. Was there?

originally posted by: yuppa
code.dccouncil.us...

Pretty solid for not existing anywhere in the US

That's D.C., I know you're geographically challenged but that's about 600 or so miles from Georgia.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So you being wrong about a "theft having to occur" is depending on who you're talking too.

So you're wrong and can not admit it. Gotcha . What ever makes you feel superior.

originally posted by: puzzled2
So you being wrong about a "theft having to occur" is depending on who you're talking too.

It's dependent on the scenario which he stated was 'attempted armed robbery'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And you incorrectly stated a "theft had to occur" for it to be armed robbery.
Which as you would have to admit is wrong unless you have Statue from Georgia.

originally posted by: puzzled2
And you incorrectly stated a "theft had to occur" for it to be armed robbery.
Which as you would have to admit is wrong unless you have Statue from Georgia.

What statute from Georgia? It's already been established that there isn't an attempted armed robbery statute, that was my whole point.

The Georgia robbery statute:

(a) A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: puzzled2
And you incorrectly stated a "theft had to occur" for it to be armed robbery.
Which as you would have to admit is wrong unless you have Statue from Georgia.

What statute from Georgia? It's already been established that there isn't an attempted armed robbery statute, that was my whole point.

The Georgia robbery statute:

(a) A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon.

there isn't an attempted armed robbery statute, that was my whole point.

maybe but you are still just as WRONG as the person whole claimed Attempted Armed Robbery was when you wrote there has to be a theft.

No theft, required only an intent to commit theft. So are you going to admit that there is no attempted robbery charge and NO actual THEFT required for someone to be charged with Armed Robbery.

note I added the bold that proves you wrong so man up Augustus no harm in admitting you're wrong. Must be really painful for you to do but you can do it. go on say it --"I AugustusMasonicus was wrong it only needs an intent to commit theft."

The fact nothing was taken is a different argument the point I am making is you are wrong a theft doesn't have to occur.

originally posted by: puzzled2
No theft, required only an intent to commit theft.

A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another...

You commit armed robbery when you have an intent to rob and take property. That's the statute.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Wow your getting the right words eventually but as you made such a big deal of the "attempted" phrase being wrong.

Looking for you to admit your phrase"a theft needs to occur" is equally wrong.

But if you're to superior to ever admit being wrong.
I pity you.
No hard feelings

a reply to: puzzled2

A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another...

The intent has to be theft and theft has to occur. This precludes someone for being prosecuted for accidentally taking something that isn't theirs with no intent of theft. It's pretty clear.

a reply to: puzzled2

Keep up the ad homs:

A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So where does it say a theft must occur? it says takes property with INTENT to commit theft.

You were 100% incorrect in you attempt to quote the law

a reply to: puzzled2

...with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another...

With 'intent' you take something. No 'try' in there which is why there isn't an attempted robbery statute.