Wrong. North Carolina has a statute for ARMED Robbery. Common Law Robbery is different.
The Statute for ARMED Robbery is:
§ 14-87. Robbery with firearms or other dangerous weapons.
(a) Any person or persons who, having in possession or with the use or threatened use of any firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement or means, whereby the life of a person is endangered or threatened, unlawfully takes or attempts to take personal property from another or from any place of business, residence or banking institution or any other place where there is a person or persons in attendance, at any time, either day or night, or who aids or abets any such person or persons in the commission of such crime, shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
The elements of this crime require a weapon to be used or implied. Common law robbery would not fit this.
II. COMMON-LAW ROBBERY.
Elements of Offense. - Robbery at common law is the felonious taking of money or goods of any value from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by violence or putting him in fear. State v. Stewart, 255 N.C. 571, 122 S.E.2d 355 (1961); State v. Lawrence, 262 N.C. 162, 136 S.E.2d 595 (1964); State v. Norris, 264 N.C. 470, 141 S.E.2d 869 (1965); State v. Rogers, 273 N.C. 208, 159 S.E.2d 525 (1968); State v. Faulkner, 5 N.C. App. 113, 168 S.E.2d 9 (1969); State v. Moore, 279 N.C. 455, 183 S.E.2d 546 (1971); State v. Osborne, 13 N.C. App. 420, 185 S.E.2d 593 (1972); State v. Hoover, 14 N.C. App. 154, 187 S.E.2d 453, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 316, 188 S.E.2d 899 (1972); State v. Black, 286 N.C. 191, 209 S.E.2d 458 (1974); State v. Dixon, 34 N.C. App. 388, 238 S.E.2d 183 (1977); State v. Melvin, 57 N.C. App. 503, 291 S.E.2d 885, cert. denied, 306 N.C. 748, 295 S.E.2d 484 (1982).
Robbery is the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, without his consent or against his will, by violence or intimidation. State v. Smith, 268 N.C. 167, 150 S.E.2d 194 (1966); State v. Council, 6 N.C. App. 397, 169 S.E.2d 921 (1969); State v. Bailey, 278 N.C. 80, 178 S.E.2d 809 (1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 948, 93 S. Ct. 293, 34 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1972); State v. Young, 16 N.C. App. 101, 191 S.E.2d 369 (1972); State v. Rivens, 299 N.C. 385, 261 S.E.2d 867 (1980); State v. Chapman, 49 N.C. App. 103, 270 S.E.2d 524 (1980).
Common-law robbery is the felonious, nonconsensual taking of money or personal property from the person or presence of another by means of violence or fear. State v. Smith, 305 N.C. 691, 292 S.E.2d 264, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1056, 103 S. Ct. 474, 74 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1982).
The essential elements of the offense of common-law robbery are the taking with the felonious intent of defendant to permanently deprive the owner of his property and to convert the owner's property to his own use. State v. McCullough, 79 N.C. App. 541, 340 S.E.2d 132, cert. denied, 316 N.C. 556, 344 S.E.2d 13 (1986).
Common-law robbery is the taking and carrying away of personal property of another from his person or presence without his consent by violence or by putting him in fear and with the intent to deprive him of its use permanently, the taker knowing that he was not entitled to take it. State v. McCullough, 79 N.C. App. 541, 340 S.E.2d 132, cert. denied, 316 N.C. 556, 344 S.E.2d 13 (1986).
Not Defined by Statute. - Robbery, a common-law offense not defined by statute in North Carolina, is merely an aggravated form of larceny. State v. Smith, 268 N.C. 167, 150 S.E.2d 194 (1966); State v. Council, 6 N.C. App. 397, 169 S.E.2d 921 (1969); State v. Hullender, 8 N.C. App. 41, 173 S.E.2d 581 (1970); State v. Chapman, 49 N.C. App. 103, 270 S.E.2d 524 (1980).
Highway robbery is a common-law offense and is frequently denominated "common-law robbery." State v. Stewart, 255 N.C. 571, 122 S.E.2d 355 (1961).
Felonious Intent Is Essential Element. - An essential element of the offense of common-law robbery is a felonious taking, i.e., a taking with the felonious intent on the part of the taker to deprive the owner of his property permanently and to convert it to the use of the taker. State v. Norris, 264 N.C. 470, 141 S.E.2d 869 (1965); State v. Mundy, 265 N.C. 528, 144 S.E.2d 572 (1965).
The statutes do define a punishment for common-law robbery:
§ 14-87.1. Punishment for common-law robbery.
Robbery as defined at common law, other than robbery with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as defined by G.S. 14-87, shall be punishable as a Class G felony.
Common law robbery would be a robbery where no deadly weapon was used, but force and intimidation was. Lets say that Someone pushed you down on the ground and said hand me your wallet. That would be common law robbery.
BTW, your citation of 14-177 does not define "crime against nature," which is what I'd expect from an LEO who's more interested in the sex lives of others than in (pick one):
Well the Courts do define it.
Definition. - The crime against nature is sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature. It includes acts with animals and acts between humans per anum and per os. State v. Chance, 3 N.C. App. 459, 165 S.E.2d 31 (1969); State v. Copeland, 11 N.C. App. 516, 181 S.E.2d 722, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 512, 183 S.E.2d 688 (1971); State v. Wright, 27 N.C. App. 263, 218 S.E.2d 511, cert. denied, 288 N.C. 733, 220 S.E.2d 622 (1975).
This section is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Poe, 40 N.C. App. 385, 252 S.E.2d 843, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 298 N.C. 303, 259 S.E.2d 304 (1979), appeal dismissed, 445 U.S. 947, 100 S. Ct. 1593, 63 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1980).
Persons of ordinary intelligence would conclude a fellatio between a man and a woman would be classified as a crime against nature and forbidden by this section. This keeps it from being unconstitutionally vague. State v. Poe, 40 N.C. App. 385, 252 S.E.2d 843, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 298 N.C. 303, 259 S.E.2d 304 (1979), appeal dismissed, 445 U.S. 947, 100 S. Ct. 1593, 63 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1980).
Conduct declared criminal by this section is sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature. State v. Whittemore, 255 N.C. 583, 122 S.E.2d 396 (1961); State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746, 142 S.E.2d 691 (1965).
Scope of Section. - This section includes all kindred acts of bestial character whereby degraded and perverted sexual desires are sought to be gratified. State v. Griffin, 175 N.C. 767, 94 S.E. 678 (1917); State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746, 142 S.E.2d 691 (1965); State v. Wright, 27 N.C. App. 263, 218 S.E.2d 511, cert. denied, 288 N.C. 733, 220 S.E.2d 622 (1975).
This section includes unnatural intercourse between male and male. State v. Fenner, 166 N.C. 247, 80 S.E. 970 (1914).
This section includes acts with animals and acts between humans per anum and per os. State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746, 142 S.E.2d 691 (1965); State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978).
This section is broad enough to include in the crime against nature other forms of the offense than sodomy and buggery. State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746, 142 S.E.2d 691 (1965); State v. Wright, 27 N.C. App. 263, 218 S.E.2d 511, cert. denied, 288 N.C. 733, 220 S.E.2d 622 (1975).
The crime against nature includes a consensual fellatio between a man and a woman. State v. Poe, 40 N.C. App. 385, 252 S.E.2d 843, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 298 N.C. 303, 259 S.E.2d 304 (1979), appeal dismissed, 445 U.S. 947, 100 S. Ct. 1593, 63 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1980).
In this jurisdiction crime against nature embraces sodomy, buggery and bestiality as those offenses were known and defined at common law. State v. O'Keefe, 263 N.C. 53, 138 S.E.2d 767 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 985, 85 S. Ct. 1355, 14 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1965); State v. Stokes, 1 N.C. App. 245, 161 S.E.2d 53, rev'd on other grounds, 274 N.C. 409, 163 S.E.2d 770 (1968).
Though penetration by or of a sexual organ is an essential element of the crime, the crime against nature is not limited to penetration by the male sexual organ. State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978).
This section condemns crimes against nature whether committed against adults or children. State v. Copeland, 11 N.C. App. 516, 181 S.E.2d 722, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 512, 183 S.E.2d 688 (1971).
As for your other nonsense claims...
I am not more interested in "other's sex lives" than murders, robbers, thieves ect... I can tell you more people are arrested for other types of crimes than the Crimes Against Nature offense.
The same arguments that you are using against the Crimes Against Nature offense are the same arguments that you libertarians use for the drug laws. Do you honestly want law enforcement officers selectively enforcing laws? What if one officer decides to enforce laws selectively only against libertarians? I bet you wouldn't like that. Laws must be enforced equally. Some officers only charge homosexuals with the Crimes Against Nature offense and give teenage heterosexuals "parking" a lesser charge or a warning. As much as I can't stand homosexuals, (I believe homosexuality should be a capital offense.) The law is the law, I can't make up law and enforce it the way I want. The law says Crimes against nature is a felony. Period. It is not right to enforce the law unequally. If you charge one person with the crime, then charge all those who meet the elements of the crime. Equal enforcement. Not Selective.
What you want is the law to be enforced the way you see fit, not the way it is written. That is not how the system works. As a law enforcement officer you take an oath to enforce the law equally as it is written. You don't get to select what laws you like and disregard those you don't.
I am sorry if that offends your libertarian anarchy world-view, but LEO's don't get to decide what laws to enforce and what laws to disregard. If you have a problem with a law, our system has a method for changing it. Elect people that will pass laws that you agree with. That is the remedy I have, and the remedy you have. I can't go changing and enforcing law, but I can vote, I can write my represenatives, just as you can.
You seem to think that I go out searching for people committing the Crimes Against Nature offenses and forget about all other crime. WRONG. It is you who are muddying the waters with red herrings, not me. During patrol if you come across a suspicious vehicle parked alone in a dark lot with movement inside any officer is going to check it out. I don't go searching for any one type of crime at the exclusion of others, but when I come across it, I have a job to do.
As for your trashing of Jefferson with liberal propaganda.
You are repeating Probably the most notorious accusation against Thomas Jefferson is the persistent allegation that he secretly took a mulatto slave named Sally Hemings (or Hemmings) as a mistress, and fathered several children by her.
The charge was first made in September 1802 (during Jefferson's first term as president) by a Scottish immigrant named James T. Caller, an embittered alcoholic and hypochondriac. Writing in a Richmond newspaper, Caller cited no evidence for his accusation, merely claiming that it was "well known." On later occasions he changed details about how the affair allegedly began and the number of children supposedly produced by it.
To those who knew Jefferson, his high moral standards and his deep devotion to his dead wife's memory, the entire story was absurd and contemptible. Nevertheless, it soon gained widespread circulation and many believers. Today it is occasionally given credence by black or leftist academics.
Jefferson never replied publicly to the charge. In a letter to a fri in June 1816, he wrote, "I should have fancied myself half guilty had I condesced to put pen to paper in refutation of their falsehoods, or drawn to them respect by any notice from myself." Years later his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, maintained that Sally's children were fathered by a nephew of Thomas Jefferson named Peter Carr, thus suggesting an additional reason for his silence.
Serious scholars of Jefferson's life reject the Hemings story. University of Virginia professor Merrill D. Peterson, a prominent Jefferson specialist, commented in his comprehensive biography of the third president: ". . . It is difficult to imagine him caught up in a miscegenous relationship. Such a mixture of the races, such a ruthless exploitation of the master-slave relationship, revolted his whole being." (Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation, New York: Oxford University Press, 1970, p. 707.)
You still fail to answer my questions.
My point remains clear consistantly. The founders established this nation on Christian Principles. They understood that morality and virtue were the building blocks of society, and that no person can be permitted to disrupt that foundation. Libertarians and Liberals are the revisionists, they do everything they can to paint the founders as hedonists who believed everyone can do what is right in their own eyes. Nothing supports this hypothesis. Nothing.
The quotes from the founders, The Statutory law and Case law of the Day all support the fact that this nation was built on godly principles. The liberals hate that fact, and do everything they can to muddy the waters.
Our Founders had no problem establishing laws that legislated morality. The Court decisions said it clearly time and time again: The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid. No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.
Their words echo in history:
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry
"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." Patrick Henry
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. John Jay
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God." Gouverneur Morris
"If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn
Nothing you say will change the fact that you idea of liberty is not what the founders had in mind. Nothing you say will change the fact that morality is vital to a nation.
Nothing will change the fact that Almighty God's law is what matters first and foremost.
You can cry all you want about the way I police.
As for the crimes against nature offense:
Dura lex sed lex
"All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purest patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship." Grover Cleveland
"In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at, or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid down-grade." Teddy Roosevelt
"They were intent upon establishing a Christian commonwealth in accordance with the principle of self-government. They were an inspired body of men. It has been said that God sifted the nations that He might send choice grain into the wilderness ... Who can fail to see it in the hand of Destiny? Who can doubt that it has been guided by a Divine Providence?" Calvin Coolidge, speaking of the founding fathers.
"Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first--the most basic--expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be." Gerald Ford
"The spirit of man is more important than mere physical strength, and the spiritual fiber of a nation than its wealth. The Bible is endorsed by the ages. Our civilization is built upon its words. In no other book is there such a collection of inspired wisdom, reality, and hope."-Dwight Eisenhower
"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.....The Bible is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God, and spiritual nature and needs of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation. America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture." Woodrow Wilson
"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state." Harry S. Truman.
"Let us, young and old, join together, as did the First Continental Congress, in the first step, humble heartfelt prayer. Let us do so for the love of God and His great goodness, in search of His guidance, and the grace of repentance, in seeking His blessings, His peace, and the resting of His kind and holy hands on ourselves, our nation, our friends in the defense of freedom, and all mankind, now and always." Ronald Reagan
"The great faith that led our nation's founding fathers to pursue this bold experience in self-government has sustained us in uncertain and perilous times; it has given us strength and inspiration to this very day. Like them, we do very well to recall our 'firm reliance on the protection of divine providence' to give thanks for the freedom and prosperity this nation enjoys, and to pray for continued help and guidance from our wise and loving Creator." George Bush