Jackson Jambalaya

One of my really good cop friends told me one time, "We only catch the dumb ones."

And I'm sure these two geniuses thought they had a great plan.

Dumb shits.

that's not bank robbery. its embezzlement and conspiracy to embezzle.

How carefully was it planned, Johnny?

Not very, Ed, not very.

"Perception of crime"

Ever notice how in a cheaply-made movie, everybody ends up looking related, because the same crappy cosmetologist has done everybody's eyebrows and makeup?

It's kinda obvious that these two Einsteins share an eyebrow 'artiste'. Maybe that's how somebody realized they're related?

@11:13 No, it actually was a bank robbery.

1:50 no, one element of robbery is that the victim is placed in fear of, or caused, bodily harm. if the teller was in on it, he was not in fear at all, except maybe of being caught, at least the state could never prove such fear beyond a reasonable doubt. if the facts in the presser are true, it was not a robbery, it was a different crime.

JPD continues to perform well

Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear.
Embezzlement is a type of financial fraud,
It doesn't matter if a bank employee knew about or assisted with the robbery.

JPD robbery/homicide is a bad joke. this wasn't a hard case because Trustmark's security system got a full frontal photo of the "robber" that was publicly published. The suspect turned himself in. Barney Fife could have made this case...

2:41, who was put in fear if the teller knew about the person coming in with the weapon? This could be an interesting case for the person with the weapon. I'd love to take his case. He's guilty of conspiracy, tops.

Key word is OR putting the victim in fear. Not AND putting the victim in fear.
Fact: Suspect approached teller stating he was armed (doesn't matter if he was or was not. Doesn't matter if teller knew the guy or not)
Fact: Suspect demanded money (this is the part that you don't seem to grasp)
Fact: Suspect was able to flee the scene with undisclosed amount of money(uhhh...I think that is ROBBERY)


If you get to defend the case, I hope I'm on the jury!

January 27, 2016 at 4:41 PM - Words ARE important, aren't they? So, when you say robbery is " taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, or threat of force, or by putting the victim in fear" the FIRST key words are "BY FORCE". This statement is intended to make it clear that "FORCE" is necessary for it to be considered "robbery". If there is no "force" there is no "robbery" ....and the rest of the definition becomes totally irrelevant.

The simple act of "taking or attempting to take something" is not enough for it to be "robbery". For example, if you take something when nobody else is around, you are STEALING, you aren't "robbing". It's a crime, yes. But it ain't robbery.

Therefore, if the accomplice KNEW what was going on and willingly participated in it,there was no "taking by force" so there was no robbery.

If I'm on the jury, the guy WALKS if they try to tag him with "robbery".

WTF? A bunch of snot-nosed adolescents in a first year law course pretending to be experts on law. Get the hell back to your outdoor pizza at Jeff Good's Fondren place. Mom doesn't want to see a light on under your door after 10:00.

luv would be lawyers and prosecutors. these clowns didn't do a robbery. been there. litigated this. know case law. its embezzlement.

18 USC 2113

the other tellers and customers would also be victims

9:25 is correct. All of the other people in the bank (except the two close cousins) were in fear and thought they were about to be harmed if they didn't stand still and obey commands.

If this is embezzlement, I'm a beaver trapper.

Tell it to the FBI and the federal prosecutor since they have jurisdiction over bank robberies.

the feds have jurisdiction over federally chartered banks and often decline jurisdiction and allow the locals to prosecute. we'll see what happens here.

Ahhh, I remember being in law school and thinking it was interesting whether a fact pattern fit these or those elements of this or that offense. But then I got back into the world and realized it's not interesting at all. These guys worked together to take stuff that wasn't theirs, whatever you call it. This ain't high philosophy guys. Only way it would interest me now is that you gotta pick the offense to find the possible prison sentence. You know, flesh, blood, iron . . . reality.

a few final points and I'll stop beating the dead horse:

1. embezzlement is not fraud, its larceny;

2. other persons in the bank are not victims, they are possible witnesses;

3. provisions of the USC are irrelevant unless the feds want to take up this case and I doubt they are interested in these run of the mill offenders; and finally,

4. every robbery is part larceny, but not every larceny is a robbery.

Wrong, 2:13 (who has finally stopped beating his horse). 'Other Persons in the bank' are indeed victims if one of them passes out or has a stroke or gives up his watch on demand or can show the least bit of harm in any of a hundred ways. And so is the teller three windows down who seeks counseling and has it paid for on the bank's dime.

Go check on your horse.