3 ms·

To commit a criminal offence, one needs the criminal act (actus reus) and the guilty mind (mens rea). If someone deactivated the security system (actus reus) wi

by eyeJam 11y ago

To commit a criminal offence, one needs the criminal act (actus reus) and the guilty mind (mens rea). If someone deactivated the security system (actus reus) with the intent (mens rea) of helping someone else burglarize, that would definitely be a crime. However if someone deactivated the security system and without criminal intent helped a criminal, then it would be a much murkier issue. Most countries have various offences on the books for criminal negligence to deal with this situation. On the other hand if the homeowner or the insurer wished to SUE someone for disabling the security system and thereby facilitating the loss of property, that someone would most likely be fucked. Civil liability doesn't require the accused to be the sole cause of the damage; one can be a contributory cause and still get roasted for huge damages. IANAL and this comment is not legal advice

piker 11y ago
(1) According to the article, disabling the wireless camera itself may be a crime in the US. If so, there are a host of ways the participant could face criminal liability under the described facts. (2) Civil liability does require, generally, causation--cause-in-fact and proximate cause. The cause-in-fact test is a simple "but-for" assessment: but-for our guy disabling the wireless, would the robbery have happened? In this case, yes, in the absence of our guy disabling the wireless, the bad guy would have still robbed the house. Disabling the wireless did not cause the robbery, the criminal was acting independent and without knowledge of the wireless camera's being disabled. Proximate cause is a more complicated legal standard, but since cause-in-fact is missing here, our guy isn't liable, and your second point is probably incorrect.
- eyeJam 11y ago
  Disabling the cameras would make it much harder to identify and catch the thief and therefore recover the stolen property. And so, on a balance of probabilities, 'but for' disabling the cameras the damage (loss of property) would not have occurred. I see what you're saying, but there's a strong argument to be made for finding the camera-disabling guest negligent. If I was advising a client I would never state things as matter-of-factly as you did, but maybe its okay in the court of HN.
  - piker 11y ago
    And "but-for" the police's inability to catch the bad guy, the plaintiff would have recovered his stolen goods as well, right? And "but-for" the Chief hiring the detective in charge of the case, the plaintiff would have been more likely to recover his property. And on and on. He should sue them all as well. A lawyer who doesn't quite yet understand factual causation or the limitations imposed by proximate cause would do well to hedge an answer like this with a client. A knowledgeable lawyer, however, would win this on SJ. [edits: typos]
eigenvector 11y ago
The US has lots of "strict liability" offences that don't require mens rea. The mere act is enough to constitute an offence.

by eyeJam 11y ago

piker 11y ago

(1) According to the article, disabling the wireless camera itself may be a crime in the US. If so, there are a host of ways the participant could face criminal liability under the described facts. (2) Civil liability does require, generally, causation--cause-in-fact and proximate cause. The cause-in-fact test is a simple "but-for" assessment: but-for our guy disabling the wireless, would the robbery have happened? In this case, yes, in the absence of our guy disabling the wireless, the bad guy would have still robbed the house. Disabling the wireless did not cause the robbery, the criminal was acting independent and without knowledge of the wireless camera's being disabled. Proximate cause is a more complicated legal standard, but since cause-in-fact is missing here, our guy isn't liable, and your second point is probably incorrect.

eyeJam 11y ago
Disabling the cameras would make it much harder to identify and catch the thief and therefore recover the stolen property. And so, on a balance of probabilities, 'but for' disabling the cameras the damage (loss of property) would not have occurred. I see what you're saying, but there's a strong argument to be made for finding the camera-disabling guest negligent. If I was advising a client I would never state things as matter-of-factly as you did, but maybe its okay in the court of HN.
- piker 11y ago
  And "but-for" the police's inability to catch the bad guy, the plaintiff would have recovered his stolen goods as well, right? And "but-for" the Chief hiring the detective in charge of the case, the plaintiff would have been more likely to recover his property. And on and on. He should sue them all as well. A lawyer who doesn't quite yet understand factual causation or the limitations imposed by proximate cause would do well to hedge an answer like this with a client. A knowledgeable lawyer, however, would win this on SJ. [edits: typos]

eigenvector 11y ago

The US has lots of "strict liability" offences that don't require mens rea. The mere act is enough to constitute an offence.