The breaking and entering the house of another in the night-time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not. ... "Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse, or other building, tent, vessel, or railroad car, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, or any felony, is guilty of burglary."
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.
See too, the use of "hot burglary," which is B&E (breaking and entering) when the lawful occupants are in the premises.
Thank you. Nice definitions. The FBI Stats include both burglary and robbery as violent crimes. In their hierarchy, Robbery is more violent than burglary.
I tent to think that Thomas and the other 3 conservatives made the correct call.
Thanks.
Thanks for that clarification. I can use all the help in the area of law. Unless its stated in a Sherlock/Agatha C novel.
thanks.
The breaking and entering the house of another in the night-time, with intent to commit a felony therein,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I had not realized “burglary” was defined as occurring solely at night. So if people are gone from their homes during the day and bad people go in and take things, it is robbery, not burglary? Yet if people are home and the house is broken into, it is then - whether day or night? - then a “hot burglary?”
The Law and its distinctions is so interesting.
Burglary is considered a crime against propriety, a basically non-violent crime, usually committed with no intention of encountering a human being. The degrees of burglary are based on how likely the criminal is likely to encounter a person in the commission of his crime. Burglary of an occupied residence is a first degree burglary because the chance of encountering the resident is high. Burglarizing an empty business is a third degree.
Robbery always involves an encounter with a person and is considered a violent crime as there is always a threat involved, an assault, perhaps a battery, injury, or death.
Ergo, Gorsuch’s decision is explicable in that the legal immigrant was convicted of burglary, an inherently non-violent crime. The order specifies deportation for crimes of violence. The crime doesn’t fit the definition of the order.
I don’t know all the details of the crime in this case, but in some jurisdictions, if a burglar is armed with a deadly weapon when committing his burglary, it becomes by definition a violent crime, because being armed, the burglar is prepared to do violence should he unexpectedly encounter a person.
Some jurisdictions hold that any burglary of a residence at any time is likely to encounter a person and violence is an expected outcome, so it’s automatically elevated to a violent crime, even if the House is empty. That’s why the Federal law should be better defined.