A Study Of The Crime Of Snatch With Weapon

Lethal weapon snatch of behavior identification and robbery, snatch crime associated with each other, but not easy to distinguish with them, as the more common type of multiple violations of property crime in real life, the distinction between them correctly and define necessary. But how should we understand the behavior of carrying weapons snatch, especially when carrying a weapon carried by countries prohibit the exclusion should be how to identify criminal behavior, the theory has a different controversy. This article is a case with a real occurrence, based on a different dispute put forward their own ideas, and keep them relevant legal analysis and combing to judicial practice proper conviction and sentencing, maintaining the authority and credibility of the judiciary, also effectively protect the legitimate victims of property and personal rights.This article focuses on selected case controversy Guo Xuezhou who with a kitchen knife on the implementation of intentional injury victim behavior, fled after the victim, the perpetrator spur of the moment belongings left at the scene removed the victim’s behavior, it should be identified as robbery, carrying weapons or snatch snatch crime. This paper analyzes the theoretical expectations, among them there are clearly defined.The text is divided into five parts:Case Summary:the first part which including case selection reasons, the basic facts, the substance of the referee, the focus of controversy.This section is to start from a difficult case, that Guo Xuezhou who implementation of intentional injury behavior, then victim fled, the temporary spur of the moment of the perpetrator removed victims legacy in the field the property the criminal behavior; the issue is whether the behavior constitute the crime of snatch or robbery, which leads to the following legal analysis.The second part is to discuss whether the case is a robbery crime:it including robbery, robbery crime constitutes a the robbery crime or identified and conclusions, some of the major issues in dispute in the analysis of whether the case is a robbery crime.This paper argues that the case does not constitute a robbery.The third part is to discuss the behavior of the case is consistent with the provisions of paragraph2of Article267of the Criminal Code. The paragraph2of Article267of the Criminal Law is with lethal weapon snatch, convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the provisions of Article263. This entry in the judicial practice is how to identify, in theory, there are two views:one view, as long as the perpetrator is found to carry a weapon in the snatch, do not ask whether they use or produce, are punished for robbery; another point of view, the behavior of people with lethal weapons, but did not use in the snatch, revealing or suggesting that bring their own weapon, there is no spirit forced the victim, it is not robbery. Guo Xuezhou in this case carry a weapon and use of a weapon, in the identification of this point there is a difficult ituation, which plays a key role in the overall nature of the case.Therefore, this part of this paper as a separate chapter, to focus on research and analysis, we think that the case does not constitute the with lethal weapon snatch.The fourth part is to discuss whether the case constitutes Crime of forcible seizure: this part includes this crime of the status of legislation in the world, snatch the concept of sin, the difference between crime or identified, snatch crimes, robbery and conclusions in this chapter combined with the controversial issues of the case and focus on narrative snatch the crime constitution and rob and robbery difference, through the analysis, this paper argues that Guo Xuezhou who constitute the crime of forcible seizure.The fifth part is the conclusion:the part which is the summarize including the scientific understanding of the crime of forcible seizure and correctly identified the crime of forcible seizure and robbery crime and robbery summarized.