Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm


Post by notmartha » Tue Feb 02, 2016 1:52 pm

Is anyone justified in violently taking the property of another against his will? If not, what is the punishment for such robbery? Is self-defense against said robbers lawful? Answers will be found below.


KJV References

Bāzaz, Hebrew Strong's #962, is used 43 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as spoil (9), prey (9), spoiled (6), rob (6), take (6), take away (2), caught (1), gathering (1), robbers (1), took (1), utterly (1). It is translated as “robbers” in the following verse:
Isaiah 42:24 - Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the LORD, he against whom we have sinned? for they would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law.
Gāzēl, Hebrew Strong's #1498, is used 4 times in the Old Testament. It is translated robbery (3) and taken away by violence (1). It is translated as “robbery” in the following verses:
Psalm 62:10 - Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart upon them.

Isaiah 61:8 - For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

Ezekiel 22:29 - The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.

Shōd, Hebrew Strong's #7701, is used 25 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as spoil (10), destruction (7), desolation (2), robbery (2), wasting (2), oppression (1), spoiler (1). It is translated as “robbery” in the following verses:
Proverbs 21:7 - The robbery of the wicked shall destroy them; because they refuse to do judgment.

Amos 3:10 - For they know not to do right, saith the LORD, who store up violence and robbery in their palaces.
Shādad, Hebrew Strong's #7703, is used 58 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as spoil (30), spoiler (11), waste (8), destroy (2), robbers (2), miscellaneous translations (5). It is translated as “robbers” in the following verses:
Job 12:6 - The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly.

Obadiah 1:5 - If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night, (how art thou cut off!) would they not have stolen till they had enough? if the grapegatherers came to thee, would they not leave some grapes?
Pereq, Hebrew Strong's #6563, is used 2 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as crossway (1), and robbery (1). It is translated as “robbery” in the following verse:
Nahum 3:1 - Woe to the bloody city! it is all full of lies and robbery; the prey departeth not;
Ṣammî, Hebrew Strong's #6782, is used 2 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as “robber” in the following verses:
Job 5:5 - Whose harvest the hungry eateth up, and taketh it even out of the thorns, and the robber swalloweth up their substance.

Job 18:9 - The gin shall take him by the heel, and the robber shall prevail against him.

Pārîṣ, Hebrew Strong's #6530, is used 6 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as robber (4), destroyer (1), ravenous (1). It is translated as “robbers” in the following verses:
Jeremiah 7:11 - Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD.

Ezekiel 7:22 - My face will I turn also from them, and they shall pollute my secret place: for the robbers shall enter into it, and defile it.

Ezekiel 18:10 - If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things,

Daniel 11:14 - And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

Harpagmos, Greek Strong's #725, is used 1 time in the New Testament, translated as “robbery” in the following verse:
Philippians 2:6 - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Lēstēs, Greek Strong's #3027, is used 15 times in the New Testament. It is translated as thief (11), robber (4). It is translated as “robber” in the following verses:
John 10:1 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

John 10:8 - All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

John 18:40 - Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

2 Corinthians 11:26 – In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
Hierosylos, Greek Strong's #2417, is used 1 time in the New Testament, translated as “robber of the churches” in the following verse:
Acts 19:37 - For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
Easton's Bible Dictionary, M.G. Easton, 1897

Practiced by the Ishmaelites (Gen. 16:12), the Chaldeans and Sabeans (Job 1:15, 17), and the men of Shechem (Judg. 9:25. See also 1 Sam. 27:6 10; 30; Hos. 4:2; 6:9). Robbers infested Judea in our Lord's time (Luke 10:30; John 18:40; Acts 5:36, 37; 21:38; 2 Cor. 11:26). The words of the Authorized Version, "counted it not robbery to be equal," etc. (Phil. 2:6, 7), are better rendered in the Revised Version, "counted it not a prize to be on an equality," etc., i.e., "did not look upon equality with God as a prize which must not slip from his grasp" = "did not cling with avidity to the prerogatives of his divine majesty; did not ambitiously display his equality with God." "Robbers of churches" should be rendered, as in the Revised Version, "of temples." In the temple at Ephesus there was a great treasure chamber, and as all that was laid up there was under the guardianship of the goddess Diana, to steal from such a place would be sacrilege (Acts 19:37).
Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 2, Sir William Blackstone, 1753
Open and violent larceny from the person, or robbery, the rapina of the civilians, is the felonious and forcible taking from the person of another of goods or money to any value by violence or putting him in fear.

1. There must be a taking, otherwise it is no robbery. A mere attempt to rob was indeed held to be felony so late as Henry the Fourth’s time, but afterwards it was taken to be only a misdemeanor, and punishable with fine and imprisonment, till the *statute 7 Geo. II. c. 21, which makes it a felony (transportable for seven years) unlawfully and maliciously to assault another with any offensive weapon or instrument, or by menaces or by other forcible or violent manner to demand any money or goods, with a felonious intent to rob. If the thief, having once taken a purse, returns it, still it is a robbery; and so it is whether the taking be strictly from the person of another, or in his presence only; as where a robber by menaces and violence puts a man in fear, and drives away his sheep or his cattle before his face. But if the taking be not either directly from his person or in his presence, it is no robbery.

2. It is immaterial of what value the thing taken is: a penny as well as a pound thus forcibly extorted makes a robbery.

3. Lastly, the taking must be by force or a previous putting in fear, which makes the violation of the person more atrocious than privately stealing; for, according to the maxim of the civil law, “qui vi rapuit, fur improbior esse videtur.” This previous violence or putting in fear is the criterion that distinguishes robbery from other larcenies; for if one privately steals sixpence from the person of another, and afterwards keeps it by putting him in fear, this is no robbery, for the fear is subsequent; neither is it capital, as privately stealing, being under the value of twelvepence. Not that it is indeed necessary, though usual, to lay in the indictment that the robbery was committed by putting in fear: it is sufficient if laid to be done by violence. And when it is laid to be done by putting in fear, this does not imply any great degree of terror or affright in the party robbed: it is enough that so much force or threatening by word or gesture be used as might create an apprehension of danger, or induce a man to part with his property without or against his consent. Thus, if a man be knocked down without previous warning and stripped of his property while senseless, though strictly he cannot be said to be put in fear, *yet this is undoubtedly a robbery. Or, if a person with a sword drawn begs an alms, and I give it him through mistrust and apprehension of violence, this is a felonious robbery. So if, under a pretence of sale, a man forcibly extorts money from another, neither shall this subterfuge avail
him. But it is doubted whether the forcing a higgler or other chapman to sell his wares, and giving him the full value of them, amounts to so heinous a crime as robbery.

This species of larceny is debarred of the benefit of clergy by statute 23 Hen. VIII. c. 1 and other subsequent statutes, not indeed in general, but only when committed in a dwelling-house or in or near the king’s highway. A robbery, therefore, in a distant field, or footpath, was not punished with death, but was open to the benefit of clergy, till the statute 3 & 4 W. and M. c. 9, which takes away clergy from both principals and accessories before the fact, in robbery, wheresoever committed.

Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828
ROB'BERY, noun

1. In law, the forcible and felonious taking from the person of another any money or goods, putting him in fear, that is, by violence or by menaces of death or personal injury. Robbery differs from theft, as it is a violent felonious taking from the person or presence of another; whereas theft is a felonious taking of goods privately from the person, dwelling, etc. of another. These words should not be confounded.

2. A plundering; a pillaging; a taking away by violence, wrong or oppression.
What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government, P. J. Proudhon, 1840
Robbery is committed in a variety of ways, which have been very cleverly distinguished and classified by legislators according to their heinousness or merit, to the end that some robbers may be honored, while others are punished.

We rob,—

1. By murder on the highway; 2. Alone, or in a band; 3. By breaking into buildings, or scaling walls; 4. By abstraction; 5. By fraudulent bankruptcy; 6. By forgery of the handwriting of public officials or private individuals; 7. By manufacture of counterfeit money. 8. By cheating; 9. By swindling; 10. By abuse of trust; 11. By games and lotteries. 12. By usury. 13. By farm-rent, house-rent, and leases of all kinds. 14. By commerce, when the profit of the merchant exceeds his legitimate salary. 15. By making profit on our product, by accepting sinecures, and by exacting exorbitant wages.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

One who commits a robbery. One who feloniously and forcibly takes goods or money to any value from the person of another by violence or putting him, in fear.

ROBBERY, crimes.

1. The felonious and forcible taking from the person of another, goods or money to any value, by violence or putting him in fear.

2. By "taking from the person" is meant not only the immediate taking from his person, but also from his presence when it is done with violence and against his consent. 1 Hale, P. C. 533; 2 Russ. Crimes, 61. The taking must be by violence or putting the owner in fear, but both these circumstances need not concur, for if a man should be knocked down and then robbed while he is insensible, the offence is still a robbery. 4 Binn. R. 379. And if the party be put in fear by threats and then robbed, it is not necessary there should be any greater violence.

3. This offence differs from a larceny from the person in this, that in the latter, there is no violence, while in the former the crime is incomplete without an actual or constructive force. Id. Vide 2 Swift's Dig. 298. Prin. Pen. Law, ch. 22, §4, p. 285; and Carrying away; Invito Domino; Larceny; Taking.
Related terms:
AGAINST THE WILL, pleadings.
In indictments for robbery from the person, the words "feloniously and against the will," must be introduced; no other words or phrase will sufficiently charge the offence.

2. Fear in the person robbed is one of the ingredients required to constitute a robbery from the person, and without this the felonious taking of the property is a larceny. It is not necessary that the owner of the property should be in fear of his own person, but fear of violence to the person of his child or of his property is sufficient.

PIRACY, crim. law.
A robbery or forcible depreciation on the high seas, without lawful authority, done animo furandi, in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.

These words are used in the definition of a robbery from the person; the offence must have been committed by putting in fear the person robbed.
2. This is the circumstance which distinguishes robbery from all other larcenies. But what force must be used, or what kind of fears excited, are questions very proper for discussion. The goods must be taken against the will (q. v.) of the possessor. For. 123.
3. There must either be a putting in fear or actual violence, though both need not be positively shown; for the former will be inferred from the latter, and the latter is sufficiently implied in the former. For example, when a man is suddenly knocked down and robbed while he is senseless, there is no fear, yet in consequence of the violence, it is presumed. 2 East, P. C. 711; 4 Binn. Rep. 379; 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 209; 2 Chit. Cr. Law, 803.

RAPINE, crim. law.
This is almost indistinguishable from robbery. (q. v.) It is the felonious taking of another man's personal property, openly and by violence, against his will. The civilians define rapine to be the taking with violence, the movable property of another, with the fraudulent intent to appropriate it to one's own.

SELF DEFENCE, crim. law.
The right to protect one's person and property from injury.
7. 1st. A man may defend himself, and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist, and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

The abuse of force. That force which is employed against common right, against the laws, and against public liberty. In cases of robbery, in order to convict the accused, it is requisite to prove that the act was done with violence; but this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, by beating, knocking down, or forcibly wresting from him on the contrary, whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life, with a view to compel the delivery of property equally falls within its limits. When an article is merely snatched, as by a sudden pull, even though a momentary force be exerted, it is not such violence as to constitute a robbery.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st Edition, 1891

One who commits a robbery.

Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. Pen. Code Cal. §211; 1 Hawk. P. C. 25; 4 Bl. Comm. 243; 3Wash. C. C. 209; 15 Ind.288; 16 Miss. 401.

Robbery is the wrongful, fraudulent, and violent taking of money, goods, or chattels, from the person of another by force or intimidation, without the consent of the owner. Code Ga. 1882, § 4389.

Robbery is where a person, either with violence or with threats of injury, and putting the person robbed in fear, takes and carries away a thing which is on the body, or in the immediate presence of the person from whom it is taken, under such circumstances that, in the absence of violence or threats, the act committed would he a theft.
Steph. Grim. Dig. 208; 2 Russ. Crimes, 78.
The Century Dictionary, an Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language, 1895
robber century dict.JPG
robber century dict.JPG (108.31 KiB) Viewed 2423 times
robbery century dict.JPG
robbery century dict.JPG (74.31 KiB) Viewed 2423 times
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991
Felonious taking of money, personal property, or any other article of value, in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.
A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he: (a) inflicts serious bodily injury upon another; or (b) threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury; or (c) commits or threatens immediately to commit any felony of the first or second degree. An act is deemed “in the course of committing a theft” if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in flight after the attempt or commission.
Most jurisdictions today divide robbery, for purposes of punishment, into simple robbery and aggravated robbery, the principal example of the latter being “armed” robbery.
WEX Legal Dictionary

A crime at common law. The unlawful taking of property from the person of another through the use of threat or force.
See 18 U.S. Code Chapter 103 - ROBBERY AND BURGLARY

Miscellaneous Quotes

Crimes of the Civil War, Judge Henry Clay Dean
Is this not slavery, or is it robbery, which takes your labor before it has been reduced to money, by levying taxes which must be deducted from your crops, in tariffs which must be paid in the purchase of your food and raiment? What is taxation without an equivalent, but rents? What are tariffs but subsidies, and what is slavery but the exactions of tariffs and taxes, which consume your labor and the time employed? What is transmitted debt but transmitted slavery, in its most deceitful form, against which philosophers have denounced as cruel and unjust; for the relief of which genius has no invention and industry no power?

To free the country of these tariffs and relieve it of this taxation, and emancipate ourselves from the crushing weight of this exhausting and exhaustless slavery, is the primary and overshadowing necessity of our political and social existence.
Lysander Spooner said:
The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents - men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest - stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.
And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived.
The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes—a large class, no doubt—each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.
And the so-called sovereigns, in these different governments, are simply the heads, or chiefs, of different bands of robbers and murderers.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
No attempt or pretence, that was ever carried into practical operation amongst civilized men -- unless possibly the pretence of a “Divine Right,” on the part of some, to govern and enslave others -- embodied so much of shameless absurdity, falsehood, impudence, robbery, usurpation, tyranny, and villany of every kind, as the attempt or pretence of establishing a government by consent, and getting the actual consent of only so many as may be necessary to keep the rest in subjection by force. Such a government is a mere conspiracy of the strong against the weak. It no more rests on consent than does the worst government on earth.
Ayn Rand said:
tatism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power -- to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. ... Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production.

A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment ... is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule.

Inflation is not caused by the actions of private citizens, but by the government: by an artificial expansion of the money supply required to support deficit spending. No private embezzlers or bank robbers in history have ever plundered people’s savings on a scale comparable to the plunder perpetrated by the fiscal policies of statist governments.

It is a policeman’s duty to protect men from criminals -- criminals being those who seize wealth by force. It is a policeman’s duty to retrieve stolen property and return it to its owners. But when robbery becomes the purpose of the law, and the policeman’s duty becomes, not the protection, but the plunder of property -- then it is an outlaw who has to become a policeman.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said:

You only have power over people as long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power - he's FREE again.

John Adams said:

Our whole system of banks is a violation of every honest principle of banks. There is no honest bank but a bank of deposit. A bank that issues paper at interest is a pickpocket or a robber. But the delusion will have its course. ... An aristocracy is growing out of them that will be as fatal as the feudal barons if unchecked in time.

John Locke said:

If the innocent honest Man must quietly quit all he has for Peace sake, to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered what kind of Peace there will be in the World, which consists only in Violence and Rapine; and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of Robbers and Oppressors.

Lao-Tzu said:

The more rules and regulations, The more thieves and robbers there will be.

Marcus Tullius Cicero said:

There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts, a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading, a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.

Albert Jay Nock said:

The primary reason for a tariff is that it enables the exploitation of the domestic consumer by a process indistinguishable from sheer robbery.

Calvin Coolidge said:

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.

Benjamin Franklin said:

Finally, there seem to be but three Ways for a Nation to acquire Wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did in plundering their conquered Neighbours. This is Robbery. The second by Commerce which is generally Cheating. The third by Agriculture the only honest Way; wherein Man receives a real Increase of the Seed thrown into the Ground, in a kind of continual Miracle wrought by the Hand of God in his favour, as a Reward for his innocent Life, and virtuous Industry.

Frederic Bastiat said:

Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law. Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.
User avatar
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Robbery

Post by notmartha » Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:25 pm

Babylonian And Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters, C. H. W. Johns, M.A., 1904

The Code of Hammurabi (circa 1750 B.C.)

§ 22. If a man has committed highway robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death.

§ 23. If the highwayman has not been caught, the man that has been robbed shall state on oath what he has lost and the city or district governor in whose territory or district the robbery took place shall restore to him what he has lost.

§ 24. If a life [has been lost], the city or district governor shall pay one mina of silver to the deceased’s relatives.

There were certain local liabilities of a public nature. Thus the Code shows that the magistrate and his district were held responsible for highway robbery or brigandage in their midst. It may be assumed that the funds to meet such liabilities were furnished by the city temple, for we note that if an official were captured, and his private means were not sufficient for his ransom, his city temple had to furnish the money.
Post Reply