✔ 最佳答案
請問香港案例 盜竊（搶掠）案 與 搶劫案 之分別？
Before answering your question let's just check what the law book say....
第210章 第9條 盜竊罪 (盜竊罪條例)
盜竊罪、搶劫罪、入屋犯法罪等
任何人犯盜竊罪，即屬犯罪，循公訴程序定罪後，可處監禁10年。
第210章 第10條 搶劫罪 (盜竊罪條例)
(1) 任何人如偷竊，而在緊接偷竊之前或在偷竊時，為偷竊而向任何人使用武力 ，或使或試圖使任何人 害怕會在當時當地受到武力對付 ，即屬犯搶劫罪。 (2) 任何人犯搶劫罪，或意圖搶劫而襲擊他人 ，即屬犯罪，循公訴程序定罪後，可處終身監禁
The key to the 2 law is in the Red Bolted Font.
The different between Theft (盜竊) and Robbery (搶劫) is the USE OF FORCE.
Bear in mind in law, it also cover the terror of be afraid of subject to forceful act, so it is the same to use force and threaten to use force during or before the commitment of the crime.
In your example, all of the (all 3) are simple theft. Or in Police Jargon, Snatch and Grab. All belong to theft category (盜竊罪) as no force or threat was apply to the victim
Let me put some example on you. The back story is again a Realtor and Her Open House.
A.) If a man pretent to be interested on the house and visited it in the Opening, but when he left, he grab the painting on the wall, it is theft .
B.) If a man pretent to be interested on the house and visited it in the Opening, after he left, he return and steal the painting, that will be theft (Breaking and Entering)
C.) If a man pretent to be interested on the house and visited it in the Opening, during the opening, he attack the realtor with a wine bottle he bought, then proceed with stealing the painting, that will be robbery .
D.) If a man pretent to be interested on the house and visited it in the Opening, during the opening, he threaten to attack the realtor in order to obtain the painting, it isrobbery .
E.) If a man pretent to be interested on the house and visited it in the Opening, during the opening, he use a knife to threaten/attack the realtor in order to obtain the painting, it is Armed Robbery
2010-07-24 13:57:05 補充：
我想問點解喺例子中，用括號括住的文字所表示的動作唔係搶劫罪中武力使用嗎？
This is a good question
In law, there is a term called "Mens Rea" (Meaning Guilty Mind)
And in your case, despite the result, it was not caused by the direct use of force, rather as a consequence of actions.
2010-07-24 13:58:34 補充：
IT would be hard to explain , so i just give you an example. You play or know how to play soccer right?
In a soccer game, in the situation of a defending playing tackling an atttacking player.
2010-07-24 13:59:42 補充：
It would not always result in a foul situation, that is, if the defending player were tackling the football and succeed, but resulting the attacking player being tackle too, the tackle will be legal, and no foul would be given
2010-07-24 14:00:50 補充：
But when the defending player, intentionally go after the attacking player, that will be with mens rea (Solely trying to tackle the player, but not the ball) then a foul will be given.
2010-07-24 14:06:16 補充：
apply to your case 1 and 2.
Case 1, the thief only aimed for the necklace and the fact that the thief does not initiate confontation with the women before, during and after the incident, it does not have a guilty mind to use force.
2010-07-24 14:07:16 補充：
However, if the thief does stop the women BEFORE then proceed to pull the necklace out, the action of stopping the woman would consider an initiate an confontation and a guild mind would be established.
2010-07-24 14:08:30 補充：
Case 2 is a bit tricky, as no one know wether the pushing part is what the theif intent to do (Only the thief knows), he could have agrue that is a crime of oppunitity, which he accidentally bump into the woman and steal her phone.,
2010-07-24 14:09:06 補充：
Typo : Thief not Theif......
2010-07-24 14:09:52 補充：
can type much more here, so i put my stuff in opinion section
