I remember once hearing that at some point(s) in history (I believe it was medieval Europe) "Absolute theft" was punished more severely, or at least considered less honorable, than banditry. Absolute theft would be what we think of as a non-violent and stealthy theft (Larceny or Burglary), whereas banditry would be armed robbery.
I heard that banditry would be considered more sympathetic to most, and seen as a the last resort of a desperate, but mostly honorable man, while thievery by stealth or deceit would be universally reviled.
Is this true? I've searched for resources on "absolute theft", but was unable to find anything containing that phrase. I have heard some things about the romanticization of highwaymen such as Dick Turpin, and how they may have been seen as different from common criminals. One theory I heard was that a highwayman would likely need to own and know how to ride a horse, which would imply a level of wealth and refinement above a common thief (how many peasants would ever learn to properly ride a horse in their lives?).
So the real questions here: Were popular morals so different from our own that a threat of violence would be considered more acceptable than a non-violent theft? Is the term "Absolute theft" a thing? Were bandits, and highwaymen really considered better than other thieves? Why?
I'm not a legal historian, but I've read many of the law codes from the 6th and 7th centuries. They do distinguish between theft in daylight and theft after dark: it's usually not ok to kill a thief in the day, unless he's actively trying to injure you with a weapon (there aren't Florida-style 'stand your ground' laws). But if a thief tries to rob you at night, you're allowed to kill him.
This distinction comes out of Roman law (you see it as early as the 12 tables), and probably reflects the Roman conviction that anything done under cover of darkness in secrecy was naturally suspicious to begin with, as well as the fact that things are more confusing and chaotic in the dark and thieves who work during those hours deserve whatever they get. It's also less likely that someone made up a 'he tried to rob me so I killed him' defense when the killing happened at night, in the person's house, than when someone killed someone else along the highway claimed 'he was totally a bandit!'
Banditry was a serious crime in the early middle ages, though, and there were legal provisions in England that held not only the bandits liable, but also the person from whom they got their weapons. The laws were harsher toward theft at night, but they weren't easy on banditry.
You also see a similar distinction in Njal's Saga (and, by extension, Norse culture), where 'sneaky theft' is unhonorable, but 'violent taking' is an expression of the natural 'right of the strongest' (which gave the offended party grounds to retaliate with force, ie. the start of a feud). The Vikings called this type of violent taking a 'rán'. William Miller wrote about it in Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga Iceland.