3 ms·

When I was a kid my house was "broken into" but because the door was unlocked the police couldn't qualify it as breaking and entering. It was merely trespassing

by swozey 7y ago

When I was a kid my house was "broken into" but because the door was unlocked the police couldn't qualify it as breaking and entering. It was merely trespassing and my neighbor who did it got off. I was 12, these details may be a bit fuzzy. I chased the guy off so nothing was taken, he just walked in, saw me running to the door and ran back out. Supposedly he was just drunk and wandered into the wrong house anyway. I'm curious what affect not locking your phone might have on police reports if your identity/etc is ever stolen and you need to provide police reports. Possibly nothing, but I can imagine some credit cards legal team working hard on that aspect of things in the event you're trying to convince AMEX to return $40k of transactions you supposedly didn't make yourself and need reversed because your phone was swiped while logged into some CC app and they copied your card number.

dwild 7y ago
> Supposedly he was just drunk and wandered into the wrong house anyway. That's what made him fine, not the fact that you didn't lock. That's a thing that quite misunderstood, but for a crime to be committed, you need criminal intent. If you just made a mistake and weren't aware it wasn't your house, it's not a crime to enter it.
- swozey 7y ago
  You're likely right and it was just my parents and police scaring me into keeping the doors locked. He wasn't arrested until the next day (had no idea he was a neighbor, he lived a few blocks away) when the police realized who he was. But that's also the thing- we had no idea what his intent was. I do recall the police that night seeming less concerned because the door was unlocked and I was chided quite a bit. I do recall them telling me what I said in my initial post but I also understand criminal intent. Personally I'm glad the guy wasn't wrung up with a felony if he was just on some ambien sleepwalk bender or whatever he was on.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  Not all crimes require intent. Crimes where intent is not required are called "Strict liability" crimes, for those crimes it is sufficient to prove that the accused did the thing which is forbidden, and it's entirely irrelevant (to guilt, though not necessarily to sentencing) why they did it. Also for some crimes the intent needn't match the outcome. For example in the UK _Attempted Murder_ requires (as well as facts of an attempt) you had an intent to kill, but _Murder_ only requires that you had an intent to at least cause grave harm, the fact of death makes it murder, even if a jury believes you intended only, say, to hospitalize the victim.

by swozey 7y ago

dwild 7y ago

> Supposedly he was just drunk and wandered into the wrong house anyway. That's what made him fine, not the fact that you didn't lock. That's a thing that quite misunderstood, but for a crime to be committed, you need criminal intent. If you just made a mistake and weren't aware it wasn't your house, it's not a crime to enter it.

swozey 7y ago
You're likely right and it was just my parents and police scaring me into keeping the doors locked. He wasn't arrested until the next day (had no idea he was a neighbor, he lived a few blocks away) when the police realized who he was. But that's also the thing- we had no idea what his intent was. I do recall the police that night seeming less concerned because the door was unlocked and I was chided quite a bit. I do recall them telling me what I said in my initial post but I also understand criminal intent. Personally I'm glad the guy wasn't wrung up with a felony if he was just on some ambien sleepwalk bender or whatever he was on.
tialaramex 7y ago
Not all crimes require intent. Crimes where intent is not required are called "Strict liability" crimes, for those crimes it is sufficient to prove that the accused did the thing which is forbidden, and it's entirely irrelevant (to guilt, though not necessarily to sentencing) why they did it. Also for some crimes the intent needn't match the outcome. For example in the UK _Attempted Murder_ requires (as well as facts of an attempt) you had an intent to kill, but _Murder_ only requires that you had an intent to at least cause grave harm, the fact of death makes it murder, even if a jury believes you intended only, say, to hospitalize the victim.