Reporters and the Law

A story recently appeared in a local paper where the reporter discussed a business that was the victim of a drive by shooting. The business was closed, no one around and no one inside or hurt in any way. The reporter said there was no evidence the business was "robbed". I know it is a small thing, but the misuse of legal terms by seasoned reporters drives me crazy. So, since I know the reporter from many contacts when I was working, I sent him an e-mail. It was polite and friendly, wishing him the best, etc. He replied that he got the term "robbed" from the sheriffs deputy that made the reference.

Wow, now I am really alarmed. It was bad enough that a reporter did not know the difference between a "burglary" and a "robbery", but the sheriffs deputy who took the call?

OK, I know none of you will ever make that mistake, but just in case, here is the difference. A Burglary is the breaking and entering of a building with the intent to commit a felony or any theft. No one needs to be there to be a victim of burglary. A Robbery is the taking and carrying away the personal property of another by force or intimidation.

Someone has to be forced or intimidated into handing over their stuff to be robbed. A building cannot ever be robbed. People are robbed, buildings are burglarized....It is just that friggin' simple. And, for a reporter who has the assignment of covering crime, and doing the job for decades to not have picked up the difference along the way is , well, astonishing. But for a deputy sheriff to be so careless in the terms, is unforegivable.....There, I do feel better now