Because a person can be guilty of both the codified larceny statute and the common law offense of larceny. The codification in Ohio of common law larceny includes all the elements of common law larceny.
"[T]here are no common-law crimes and no common-law criminal procedure in Ohio."
State v. Lisbon Sales Book Co., 176 Ohio St. 482, 486, 200 N.E.2d 590, 594 (1964).
Again, its only larceny if you exceed the scope of consent the store has granted you. The store allows you to place items in the shopping cart and go buy it. In limited circumstances, a store employee may allow you to sample merchandise. The store does not allow you to go in and putz around with all their merchandise however you see fit.
Has Wal-Mart alleged that this guy has exceeded his license and in some way converted to BB/pellet gun to his exclusive possession? If so, please point that out.
Super, time to explain the difference between assault and battery, and how the codified assault statute does not preclude prosecution for the underlying common law assault. Common law assault is the intentional causal of apprehension on the part of another person of a harmful or offensive contact. The pointing of a gun at a person can cause a person to believe they will imminently be shot or touched with the butt of the gun. Therefore, it satisfies the common law assault. As codified, this statute is talking about battery, which is the harmful touching of another person. Many states, like Ohio, like to lump assault and battery into the same crime. However, you can still be charged for the underlying common law assault crime. Why? Because we are NOT a civic law society (with the exception of New Lousiana). You can be charged with common law offenses as well.
Please stop. Unless you know better than the Ohio Supreme Court, just stop: "[T]here are no common-law crimes and no common-law criminal procedure in Ohio."
State v. Lisbon Sales Book Co., 176 Ohio St. 482, 486, 200 N.E.2d 590, 594 (1964). The common-law differences between assault and battery are irrelevant. The Court of Appeals of Ohio also directly addressed this:
Appellant, in the case sub judice, argues that, pursuant to Roberts, if disorderly conduct is a lesser included offense of assault, and assault is a lesser included offense of murder (and, presumably, attempted murder), then disorderly conduct should, by extension, be found to be a lesser included offense of attempted murder. Appellant's argument is creative, but ultimately unavailing. The reason that appellant's argument is not convincing lies in the subsuming, in the statutory crime of assault, of two different common law crimes: assault and battery.
State v. Williams, 88-G-1483, 1990 WL 47451 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 13, 1990).
It could indeed have been the police, or the people he was allegedly assaulting. When you assault someone, you beg self-defense violence. Therefore, whenever you assault, this is a lesser included offense.
That's just categorically incorrect. In Ohio, a defendant cannot be deemed to have urged another to commit an offense of violence, as required to support conviction for inciting to violence, where the other person was not urged to commit an offense of violence against a third party but, rather, against the defendant.
See State v. Turner, 2007-Ohio-5449.
