6 ms·

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbing to remove valuables without right from (a place) Does no

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbing to remove valuables without right from (a place) Does not need to be violent to be a robbery

haberman 9y ago
It's a legal term, the legal definition is that robbery involves physical force or fear: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/01/whats-the-difference-between-burglary-robbery-and-theft.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/01/whats-the-differenc...
- Retric 9y ago
  As this is not a court room we are not so bound.
  - haberman 9y ago
    Merriam-Webster also added a definition for "literally" that means "virtually." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally So sure, you could cite a dictionary as license to use words in misleading ways because other (confused) people have made an unhelpful definition commonplace. But some people actually care about using words to convey meaning, and care about the difference between "robbery" and "theft."
    - chc 9y ago
      The "difference" between robbery and theft exists primarily in legal jargon, and was never sharply defined in common usage. Regardless of your distaste for "literally," the dictionary is a much better source on colloquial usage than the penal code.
    - burkaman 9y ago
      Literally does mean virtually now. If you care about using words to convey meaning, you should care what other people think words mean. What you think is pretty much irrelevant if everyone else disagrees with you.
      - haberman 9y ago
        If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. > What you think is pretty much irrelevant if everyone else disagrees with you. You don't think I can find a single other person who agrees with me?
        burkaman 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples "cleave" and "sanction" are probably the most familiar examples here.
        Retric 9y ago
        Off as in "The alarm went off" is another great example. You can tell the state changed, but not if it started or stopped.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. First, this is wrong; many words have multiple meanings some of which are diametrically opposed; they still have meaning, though it may take awareness of context to interpret the correct meaning. Second, its irrelevant; the different meanings of “literally” are not opposites, though the figurative use (which does not, contrary to some descriptions, mean same as “figuratively”) is often presented incorrectly in a manner which suggests that. The figurative meaning is a qualitative intensifier applied to another figurative description which the speaker expects is clearly figurative from context, not a description which communicated that that use is figurative rather than literal.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
greensoap 9y ago
The legal definition is different than the dictionary definition. In California for example, “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." I know of no case holding that driving off with a person's property is "force." This probably would fall under theft in a criminal proceeding in Cal.: Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft. In determining the value of the property obtained, for the purposes of this section, the reasonable and fair market value shall be the test, and in determining the value of services received the contract price shall be the test. If there be no contract price, the reasonable and going wage for the service rendered shall govern. For the purposes of this section, any false or fraudulent representation or pretense made shall be treated as continuing, so as to cover any money, property or service received as a result thereof, and the complaint, information or indictment may charge that the crime was committed on any date during the particular period in question. The hiring of any additional employee or employees without advising each of them of every labor claim due and unpaid and every judgment that the employer has been unable to meet shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.
- chc 9y ago
  OK, so we've established that the legal definition is different from the dictionary definition. Now we just need to figure out if the OP is a blog post or a legal filing and we'll know which definition we should use.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The legal definition is different than the dictionary definition. The legal definition is irrelevant, since the use in the title is not referring to the legal offense at issue in the lawsuit (which is not the crime of robbery, sure, but also not the crime of theft that you spend most of your response discussing the definition of for a jurisdiction other than the one relevant to the article, but instead a tort, likely—though unspecified in the article—conversion or something similar) but a common-language description of the event.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbing to remove valuables without right from (a place) Does not need to be violent to be a robbery

haberman 9y ago

It's a legal term, the legal definition is that robbery involves physical force or fear: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/01/whats-the-difference-between-burglary-robbery-and-theft.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/01/whats-the-differenc...

Retric 9y ago
As this is not a court room we are not so bound.
- haberman 9y ago
  Merriam-Webster also added a definition for "literally" that means "virtually." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally So sure, you could cite a dictionary as license to use words in misleading ways because other (confused) people have made an unhelpful definition commonplace. But some people actually care about using words to convey meaning, and care about the difference between "robbery" and "theft."
  - chc 9y ago
    The "difference" between robbery and theft exists primarily in legal jargon, and was never sharply defined in common usage. Regardless of your distaste for "literally," the dictionary is a much better source on colloquial usage than the penal code.
  - burkaman 9y ago
    Literally does mean virtually now. If you care about using words to convey meaning, you should care what other people think words mean. What you think is pretty much irrelevant if everyone else disagrees with you.
    - haberman 9y ago
      If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. > What you think is pretty much irrelevant if everyone else disagrees with you. You don't think I can find a single other person who agrees with me?
      - burkaman 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples "cleave" and "sanction" are probably the most familiar examples here.
        Retric 9y ago
        Off as in "The alarm went off" is another great example. You can tell the state changed, but not if it started or stopped.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. First, this is wrong; many words have multiple meanings some of which are diametrically opposed; they still have meaning, though it may take awareness of context to interpret the correct meaning. Second, its irrelevant; the different meanings of “literally” are not opposites, though the figurative use (which does not, contrary to some descriptions, mean same as “figuratively”) is often presented incorrectly in a manner which suggests that. The figurative meaning is a qualitative intensifier applied to another figurative description which the speaker expects is clearly figurative from context, not a description which communicated that that use is figurative rather than literal.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

greensoap 9y ago

The legal definition is different than the dictionary definition. In California for example, “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." I know of no case holding that driving off with a person's property is "force." This probably would fall under theft in a criminal proceeding in Cal.: Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft. In determining the value of the property obtained, for the purposes of this section, the reasonable and fair market value shall be the test, and in determining the value of services received the contract price shall be the test. If there be no contract price, the reasonable and going wage for the service rendered shall govern. For the purposes of this section, any false or fraudulent representation or pretense made shall be treated as continuing, so as to cover any money, property or service received as a result thereof, and the complaint, information or indictment may charge that the crime was committed on any date during the particular period in question. The hiring of any additional employee or employees without advising each of them of every labor claim due and unpaid and every judgment that the employer has been unable to meet shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.

chc 9y ago
OK, so we've established that the legal definition is different from the dictionary definition. Now we just need to figure out if the OP is a blog post or a legal filing and we'll know which definition we should use.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The legal definition is different than the dictionary definition. The legal definition is irrelevant, since the use in the title is not referring to the legal offense at issue in the lawsuit (which is not the crime of robbery, sure, but also not the crime of theft that you spend most of your response discussing the definition of for a jurisdiction other than the one relevant to the article, but instead a tort, likely—though unspecified in the article—conversion or something similar) but a common-language description of the event.